Preamble

The House met at Ten o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Latin America

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I am most grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for granting this debate on Britain's relations with Latin America. This is the eighth successive annual debate on Latin America and it is the only such debate that this House holds on regions of the world.
The debate brings together members of the all-party British and Latin American parliamentary group. We have here our chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), many colleagues on both sides of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), to stress this morning the importance of the region.
Latin America, stretching from the Rio Grande to Tierra del Fuego, contains 8 per cent. of the world's population. It has outstanding potential, abundant natural resources, skilled work forces and few of the extremes of poverty with which we are so familiar in Africa and in Asia. Above all, Latin America has a close cultural identification and rapport with Europe.
I sometimes think that we in this country overlook the considerable weight of the region and its component countries. How often do we remember that the region as a whole economically outweighs Africa, the Indian sub-continent and south-east Asia all put together? Furthermore, the individual republics are powerful economies in their own right. How many of us realise that Mexico alone has a greater gross domestic product than those of Sweden, Hong Kong and Nigeria put together?
The economies of the neighbouring republics of Venezuela and Colombia are, together, almost as large as that of South Africa, a country that occupies this House greatly. Chile alone almost equates to either Malaysia or Singapore. Brazil, on the other hand, has an economy equal to that of Spain and its Sao Paulo state alone has a similar GDP to that of Belgium. Not to be outdone, Argentina, with its GDP of $250 billion, is rapidly catching up with Australia. So we are not talking this morning about lightweights or about the backwoods.
Britain has long taken a leading role in this region. In every debate over the past eight years, I have highlighted how, in the House of Commons on 12 December 1826, the then Foreign Secretary, George Canning, referred to

Britain's role in the independence struggle in Latin America, declaring that Britain had—I quote from Hansard—
called the New World into existence to redress the balance of the Old.
It is, therefore, with pleasure that we noted the stress on the transatlantic free trade area in the speech to the Conservative party conference last week by the current Foreign Secretary and, indeed, the similar point made by our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the same conference. Indeed, the Prime Minister is the first serving Prime Minister of this country to have visited Latin America. His visits to Colombia and Brazil for the earth summit were very popular. I hope that they will be the first among many visits he makes to this important region.
It gives a perspective to look at our first regional debate on Latin America in 1988, which I also had the honour of opening. At that time, we covered the general agreement on tariffs and trade, British trade, the Falklands crisis and the teaching of the Spanish language in Britain. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) lauded Nicaragua and condemned Chile. How things have moved on! Today, democracy has broken out all over Latin America, with the depressing exception of Cuba. Privatisation and sound finances are the objective and frequently the achievement of so many of the republics. I sometimes think that our debates have become dull, even if most worthy, with the departure of the ideological battles that used so to excite the House when discussing Latin America. Both Chile and Nicaragua are proud democracies with directly elected presidents, and our debates are dominated by economic management, investment, trade and cultural relations.
The affairs of the Falkland Islands remain a concern of particular interest to the House. We have made considerable progress over the 13 years since the south Atlantic conflict—a tragic conflict, and so unnecessary, pitting friend against friend. This country remains committed to the principle of self-determination, and the Falklanders clearly remain committed to self-government under the Crown.
Before 1982 a position leading to a constitutional link with Argentina might have been possible, but as a result of the conflict such a link is impossible, certainly for the present generation of islanders. The Argentines have only themselves to blame, if only for allowing their military rulers to commit such irresponsible folly.
Argentina must understand that our commitment to self-determination precludes any of their ambitions concerning sovereignty. We have no hang-ups over relinquishing sovereignty; our loss of sovereignty over the real estate of Ottawa, Sydney or New Delhi are proof of that. But we stand firm over the legitimate holding of sovereignty and its transfer only in response to democratic will. Any misunderstanding of the view of the House, and in particular the view of those of its Members who are genuine friends of Latin America, would serve only to repeat the tragedy.
Nevertheless, we are admirers of the profound good sense of President Menem in setting the sovereignty dispute to one side and developing the rapidly strengthening bilateral relations. Over the past year alone we have had the presence in the House of both the Foreign Minister, Guido di Tella, and Eduardo Menem, the President of the Senate. Their visits, and the warm


reception that they received from colleagues on both sides of the House are a testimony to the excellent relations that are developing.
There are many other examples of the growing relationship between Argentina and Britain. The fourth Argentine-British conference was held in Keble college, Oxford last month, bringing together politicians, business men and journalists not only from Britain and Argentina but from the islands. At such conferences it is moving to see the way in which the wounds inflicted 13 years ago have been overcome, and two great nations are being brought back together.
We must press ahead with the co-operation between Britain and Argentina. That is why I welcome the working agreement on fisheries, and the recent agreement on oil exploration. There are wonderful prospects for co-operation between the islands and Argentina in developing oil production. Clearly Argentina can contribute greatly to, and benefit from, the support infrastructure that the oil business will require. It seems to me that that would be best located on the mainland of Argentina; the challenge for the islanders is to obtain the financial benefits of the oil industry without sacrificing either their outstanding environment or their unique way of life.
In the time available it is not possible to cover the events of the past year in each of the republics. Suffice it to say that considerable progress is being made. Both Brazil and Argentina have made great strides in throttling inflation. That has been accompanied by significant social costs, but the forecast of 5 per cent. growth in Brazil puts the matter into context.
The courage shown by the Government of Colombia in dealing with the scourge of the drug trade is most welcome, and I am delighted by the discreet and effective support given by Her Majesty's Government in that fight. The maturity of the Latin American nations today is best exemplified by the way in which they have helped Peru and Ecuador settle their frontier dispute.
Bolivia's economic and privatisation progress is commendable. We wish Chile success in carrying through peaceful constitutional reforms that will build further on its remarkable economic record. In Peru progress continues to be made with the economy and in the battle against the perennial challenge posed by the Sendero Luminoso, a terrorist movement, and its heirs.
Both Venezuela and Ecuador suffer from instability, and I hope that by next year's debate, if you are kind enough to grant one, Madam Speaker, we shall have seen considerable progress in those two republics.
In recent years much has been said in the House concerning the tragic situations that developed over a long period in central America, and it is probably a blessing that we no longer see that region on our television screens. That seems to suggest that quiet progress is now being made.
Cuba remains, having still to make the great leap into the new Latin American era of proper democratic elections. Nevertheless, progress is being made on the basis of liberalisation and trade, even if the legacy of communist restrictions and controls inhibits faster progress in the island.
The key issue of the year for Latin America holds an uncanny echo of events in Europe. The continent is groping forwards to a new era of trading blocs. Mexico has enveloped itself in the North American Free Trade Agreement, with dramatic consequences. Other nations, notably Chile, are toying with the idea of joining.
Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay have joined together in Mercosur, which is making significant progress. Established as recently as January this year, the organisation covers 200 million people and a GDP of $700 billion. Progressively eliminating internal barriers, it presents remarkable opportunities, especially for British investors and traders.
Last month Mercosur concluded a successful negotiation with the European Union, providing for an agreement that will lead to a free trade treaty. I welcome that, and look forward to ratification at the summit of European Union and Mercosur leaders in Madrid on 15 December.
That raises early echoes, perhaps parallel echoes, of the Foreign Secretary's references to a transatlantic trading community. The most significant aspect of my right hon. and learned Friend's scene-setting both at Chatham house and subsequently at the Conservative party conference was his vision of a close transatlantic free trade area between NAFTA and the EU, in which Britain can play a great part. He will know, of course, that a more accurate and ample vision is that of an association between Europe and all the Americas, covering an area that shares a common cultural and economic heritage. I hope that the debate will do much to stress the fact that not only North America and Europe alone but all the Americas and Europe should be the basis of that new and exciting development in British foreign policy.
We bring to that vision of a transatlantic free trade area a powerful political, economic and cultural inheritance, involving not only the United States but Latin America. Britain can play a vital part in those developments, drawing on our strengths. With the inheritance of George Canning, of the Legion Britanica, which served with Bolivar, of Admiral Cochrane in Brazil and Chile, and of decades of investment in the public services, industry, trade and commerce, we are well placed to play a pivotal role in the developments in transatlantic policies now arising.
Canning house, the outstanding Latin American centre in London, recently celebrated its 50th anniversary, and it plays a significant role in developing trade, investment and cultural links between Latin America and Britain. London is in so many ways the first port of call for Latin Americans to Europe, and it is vital that those relationships, both commercial and with the city, are developed and strengthened by every means and every assistance that the Government can provide.
Ministerial visits in both directions have increased phenomenally in recent years. I hope that there will be many more such visits, and that President Cardoso of Brazil will make an official visit to Britain next year. I look forward to a year of success and further development of our relations with Latin America, and the House will wish my hon. Friend the Minister of State well in his new role as Minister responsible for Latin America.
Latin America shares with the Pacific rim the prospect of being the focus of the 21st century. I hope that this debate will add impetus to Britain's participation in that great potential.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: It is difficult for me to follow the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), as I found little with which I could agree in what he said, and his interpretation of history should be filed under "Sycophantic". The idea that Britain was the mainstay of the Latin American independence movement rather ignores the roles of Simon Bolivar and many other people, and turns history on its head. The hon. Gentleman also failed to mention that while George Canning might have been in favour of independence for the Spanish colonies, he certainly did not exert the same influence when it came to British colonies or British and other European imperialism.
The House may have noticed an early-day motion in my name deploring the fact that General Pinochet visited Britain two weeks ago. Conservative Members might well smile about that, but their party was the mainstay of his regime during his reign of terror in Chile when the British Tory Government were happy to supply him with arms. I want to put on record my disgust, and the disgust of many other people, that such an evil man was allowed to visit this country and be feted and allowed to do business with British companies to buy arms. General Pinochet authorised the murder of the elected president of Chile in 1973 which led to the reign of terror in which thousands of people disappeared. There are many grieving families in Chile still looking for missing relatives who they know are buried in unmarked graves somewhere in that beautiful country.
While I recognise that things have changed in Chile, which now has an elected Government and President, there are still some flaws in the constitution. Pinochet is still the head of the armed services, and he is able to appoint people to the senate and travel freely around the world. Frankly, he should answer for the crimes he committed against the people of Chile and for the human rights abuses which occurred during his period of control in Chile.
We are talking about a continent which is fascinating and extensive, and it is difficult to cover all the matters relating to Latin America in a short debate such as this. In his little tour of Latin America, the hon. Member for Gravesham failed to recognise that the United States has always sought to dominate Latin America through the Monroe doctrine. The hon. Gentleman ignored that completely, and spoke as if the whole continent was some kind of ex-British colony. In fact, the United States has the dominant hand throughout the continent.
In the past two years—particularly since the introduction of the North American Free Trade Agreement between Canada, the US and Mexico—we have seen the true face of the United States and what it wants to do. The US wants to make Mexico a cheap labour pool for the—[Interruption.] I do not know why the hon. Member for Gravesham finds this so funny. On his next free trip to Latin America, the hon. Gentleman should visit some of the shanty towns outside the capital cities in the region, and he will then see what structural adjustment programmes, the IMF and the World bank are doing to the poorest people of the continent.
In Mexico, the NAFTA is forcing down wages, creating a vast amount of unemployment and encouraging cuts in public expenditure, and the lot of the poorest people in Mexico is very serious. The recent rising in Mexico and

the role of the Mexican army in attempting to control that uprising are symptoms of the anger that many people feel about the loss of their land and livelihood and about the way in which multinational capital increasingly controls their lives.
While the results of the changes in Haiti have been mixed, one must recognise that the agreements increasingly being reached in the Caribbean basin by the United States and by United States companies are resulting in the most appalling exploitation of people in that region. The hon. Member for Gravesham mentioned Cuba. While he and I would probably diametrically disagree on much of what has happened in Cuba, the hon. Gentleman must recognise that there is a universal free health service in Cuba, unlike any other country in the region. There is a universal free education service in Cuba, unlike any other country in the region. There is more or less full employment, despite the present blockade.
Cuba has been abominably treated by the United States since 1959. First, Cuba suffered several years of military attacks and military blockades, and there has been an economic blockade for more than 30 years. It is amazing that the Cuban economy has survived at all. While the British Government have never endorsed or taken part in the economic blockade of Cuba, I hope that they will at least put pressure on the United States Administration to lift the blockade of Cuba, which is causing incredible suffering. The blockade is making it difficult for the Cubans to restructure their economy to produce more of their own food or to export medicines, as the Cuban health service is the envy of every country in Latin America.
The economic problems facing so many countries in the region—particularly the former British colonies and the others which have gained independence in the past 30 or 40 years—are now serious. I have received a letter from Father Bobby Gilmore, who used to be a priest at the Irish chaplaincy in Islington and has gone to preach and live in Jamaica. He wrote a nice letter, asking me
to press the World Bank and International Monetary Fund to cancel debt owed them by the poorest and most debt burdened countries … Many severely-indebted countries accept World Bank and IMF structural adjustment loans, because these loans provide the international currency countries need to pay their foreign debts. These practices, in fact, underline the economic health of the borrowing countries by bringing about lower wages, deteriorating educational systems, and reduced medical care … What I am witnessing daily here in the Jamaican countryside is general decline in those areas of life, particularly in education, which put democracy and general human wellbeing at risk. Violence is on the increase threatening the tourist industry and other possible investment.
The letter ended by urging me to do something to "prevent modern slavery" which is what Father Gilmore believes the conditions imposed by the IMF on the poorest countries of the region to be. There are problems throughout the region, and the economic solutions are being increasingly imposed on countries by the IMF and the World bank. Britain is a major participant in these organisations, and we have a voice on the governing bodies of both of them. But I hear few arguments that the structural adjustment programmes being imposed on countries to encourage an export-led solution to their economic problems are resulting in people paying a terrifying price, with the loss of their social structures, high levels of unemployment and low levels of wages.
Recently, I attended a conference on central America, where I heard a fascinating talk by Victor Hugo Tinoco, the international relations secretary of the Sandinista front


in Nicaragua which lost the elections towards the end of the Contra war, on the situation in Nicaragua today. I quote from the briefing which accompanied his talk:
70 per cent. unemployment, crumbling social services, local production destroyed by a flood of cheap foreign imports, lack of credit for small farmers producing for domestic consumption, rising malnutrition and illiteracy and 40 per cent. of the population living in acute poverty.
When the Sandinistas were leading the Government of Nicaragua, health care, education, housing and employment all improved, despite the US-supported war against that Government. One must ask what that war was all about. Was Nicaragua such a threat to the United States? It was no threat whatsoever. There never was a military threat from Nicaragua to the United States, any more than there is a military threat from Cuba.
It is the threat by example that the United States could not cope with, and that is why so much money and effort went into destroying the achievements in that country. What is now happening in Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala is that a large number of demobilised soldiers from the national army, or demobilised Contra and other guerillas, are looking for work and an existence, but all that they have are the weapons left at the end of the war. So a number of illicit bands are roaming around those countries, causing mayhem, crime and all the rest—something that will get worse.
We must take the problems there seriously, or there will be a complete breakdown in society as a whole. That can be avoided only if sufficient aid and real support are given for a democratic process, and I do not call the imposition of structural adjustment programmes by the International Monetary Fund any part of the democratic process as I understand it.
There is a similar position in El Salvador, where the United Nations happily was able to negotiate a peace accord and bring about a ceasefire and the development of democratic politics—something that must be seen as wholly welcome. Unless support is given to the agricultural economy of El Salvador, however, people will continue to flood from the countryside to the shanty towns around El Salvador and the other cities and unemployment will continue to grow. All the conditions that led to the civil war in the first place will return with greater vengeance and there will be an even greater collapse in society than there was then.
It is all very well for Conservative Members and, indeed, the United States, to say, "Hang on a minute. We now have quasi-democratic Governments installed in virtually every country in Latin America." The problems of the human rights abuses, which were caused by the destruction of social systems, are very serious.
A Peruvian woman came to my advice surgery last week to ask what could be done about her husband, who had been arrested in Peru. He is not involved in military activity of any sort—either in the Tupac Amarù brigades or the Sendero Luminoso—and totally deplores what they are doing. He was speaking out against unemployment, poverty and so forth and was accused of being a member of Sendero. He was beaten and tortured by the police and is now in prison, in a very serious situation. Because of the way in which martial law effectively operates in much of Peru, his human rights and rights to any decent judicial process are limited, if not virtually non-existent. That is

the price that is being paid by ordinary people in countries throughout the region. I do not want to over-generalise as I am talking of the situation in Peru.
While one welcomes any progress towards a genuinely democratic society, to have such a society human rights must be guaranteed for all people. Clearly, they are not. One has to have the right to work, to be educated and to have a decent health service, which is also part of the process. Generally, democracy does not come at the hands of multinational corporations or a visit from the IMF and t0he World bank.
Likewise, the situation in Guatemala is very serious, as I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) will mention later, when he speaks for the Opposition. While there has been a reduction in violence since the height of the war, the armed forces and the police, who were unaccountable during the worst days of the problems, are still unaccountable and abusing human rights. The very perpetrators of all those human rights abuses are still at large and anyone who speaks out against them is liable to receive a bullet in the back of the head on a dark night for daring to do so. That is the reality of the life of ordinary people who do not accept that it is right for so many to live in such appalling poverty.
Latin America is a huge subject and I do not want to detain the House any longer, save to say that these debates are very welcome because they at least give us an opportunity to mention important points about economic relations between western Europe, north America and the peoples of Latin America.
I have one question on Antarctica for the Minister and I would be grateful if he could answer it when he replies to the debate. Has he reached any agreement with the Argentine Government about the siting of the secretariat to carry out the functions of the Antarctic treaty that was negotiated and endorsed by the House a couple of years ago?

Mr. Ray Whitney: I think that I speak for the rest of the House in saying that the contributions of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) would be greatly missed if we were not given the benefit of them because he brings to these debates a consistency and a whiff of nostalgia that are distinctive. He has the consistency of having been wrong in virtually every forecast that he has made in such debates and he brings us a nostalgic whiff of the totally discredited Marxism of the 1960s, which brings happy memories for those of us who used to read what was then called the New Statesman, but have learnt better sense. His other contribution is to remind us that, despite the efforts of the Leader of the Opposition to paint the picture of new Labour, old Labour is alive and well on the Opposition Benches and marching firmly in the wrong ideological direction.
May I return from the world of the hon. Member for Islington, North to the real world, and add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) for yet again—the eighth time—giving the House the opportunity to discuss this subject. Small though the numbers of Members present in such debates are, the debates are significant and have some contribution to make to Britain's relations with Latin America.
Today, I hope that we can awaken a stronger understanding of the opportunities for British business in Latin America. That is the aspect on which I shall dwell in the few minutes available to me. On the whole, the year since our last debate has been a good one for Latin America. Inevitably, there have been ups and downs, as in every other part of the world, on most of which my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham touched with his profound knowledge.
As I want to concentrate on the economic aspects, I must highlight the upset in the Mexican economy in January. The important point was how quickly the whole of Latin America recovered from what was undoubtedly a serious shock. That was in significant contrast to what happened in 1982, when a severe setback in the Mexican economy had long-lasting ramifications throughout the region, which has not been the case this time. Recovery is well under way in Mexico and the rest of the region has not been affected to nearly the same extent. There is evident attachment to free-market, liberal economies, with all the pressures that those undoubtedly cause. The medicine is not pleasant. Indeed, it is painful, but the results are beneficial, as everyone in the rest of the world knows, with the exception of a few lost souls, one of whom—the hon. Member for Islington, North—spoke just before me.
This year, there were elections in Argentina and Peru, which demonstrated that those Governments, who are dedicated to such difficult free market economic policies, have democratic support. The political and economic outlook for Latin America is favourable for stability and for commitment to the democratic process throughout the region, although there are various problems. I hope that Cuba will come into line before very long.
The economic outlook is particularly encouraging. I must draw the attention of the House to the World bank study completed earlier this year, which predicted that
the region's economy as a whole could grow at … 6 per cent. a year between 1998 and 2005, provided that governments learn the lessons of the Mexican upheaval.
Let us consider the statistics that my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham gave on the economic power that Latin America already possesses, which most people in the rest of the world underestimate. Add to that the growth prospects that the World bank thinks that the region could achieve and one has a challenging and interesting market.
Of course, it is a two-way market. Believers as we are in the benefits of free trade and investment—certainly on the Conservative side of the House—we are talking about a two-way, everyone-wins development and we must concentrate on that. I was particularly glad, therefore, that the United Kingdom Government launched their Link into Latin America campaign at the beginning of the year. Unhappily, it coincided with the problems in Mexico, but I do not think that that has derailed the programme. No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister of State will have something to say on that.
The campaign has led to a general and growing awareness in British business of the opportunities in Latin America, which was demonstrated by the large attendance at the conference that the CBI organised on Mercosur on 21 September. I strongly endorse the warm tributes paid to Canning house by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham. The Canning house conference on a free trade area of the Americas on Monday 16 October again demonstrated the efforts that are being made by LATAG,

Canning house itself, the Department of Trade and Industry and all the bodies charged with developing our interests in Latin America.
However, we still have more to do and I refer the House to one aspect: the European Union's programme for industrial co-operation with Latin America, Alinvest, voted last month 41 million ecu of European Union funds for a five-year programme of technology transfer, know-how initiatives and strategic alliances between the two regions. As I understand it, there are 170 trade multipliers, as they are called, of which only seven are from the United Kingdom—less than 4 per cent. of the total—while 60 per cent. is in three countries: Spain, France and Italy. Keen as I personally am on taking full advantage of our membership of the European Union, I hope that British exporters, led if necessary again by the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign Office, will take full advantage of the European Union funds which are available to them.
The panorama is extremely encouraging. The latest agreement between Britain and Argentina on Falkland Islands oil exploration is a development greatly to be welcomed. Neither side must be put off by the rhetoric that is occasionally directed towards that difficult issue. We have experience in our recent past of the dangers of rhetoric going too far. We must concentrate on the practical realities and I believe that the oil exploration agreement is a good example of what can be achieved by responsible statesmen working together for the general good. The agreement will further enhance relations between Britain and Argentina, which are remarkably strong and have withstood the inevitable pressures exerted by the Falkland Islands dispute. There will be a further spin-off effect on Britain's standing with the rest of Latin America.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham said, the historical and continuing, deep-seated cultural, family and trade links that we already have mean that there is a great basis on which to build. The message of this debate should go out to Latin America that we in Britain recognise what has been achieved and know that there are problems but that we congratulate those countries on the restoration of democracy, the political stability that is developing throughout the region and the economic progress that is being attained. We look forward to working together, possibly through a free trade area of the sort that is now being discussed. There are difficulties with that, but let us hope that we can make progress on it. We look forward to collaborating with Latin America.
The other message is to our own countrymen, especially those engaged in trade. It is the smaller companies to which we must address ourselves and say that while there are opportunities with the Asian tigers and in eastern Europe, they should not forget the vibrant, positive, encouraging opportunity in Latin America. I hope very much that the Government will take the lead in reinforcing the initiatives they have already undertaken.

Sir Kenneth Carlisle: I, too, am glad to take part in this debate and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) for the enthusiasm and zest with which he has encouraged good relations with the whole of Latin America and encouraged these debates in the House over the years.
This morning, I want to concentrate on Argentina because I have long family connections with that great country. My family first became involved in Argentina in about 1820. My father was born in Buenos Aires. I had the good fortune to work there for two years in the 1960s. I still have family who live and work happily there. For me, as for my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) who has spent time in the embassy in Argentina, it is a joy that they have come through difficult times and that relations between our two countries are now genuinely warm, constructive and show great promise for the future.
I believe that our now firm relations with Argentina are at a juncture where there is great scope for further growth over many facets of our friendship. That potential exists not only because of our old and enduring links with Argentina but because of the impressive economic promise of that country and its democratic stability.
It is worth reminding ourselves that Argentina is one third the size of the United States—I million square miles. It is a huge country with one of the best agricultural industries in the world, which has great potential. It also has enormous reserves of raw materials which are in the process of being developed and which offer it great promise of prosperity in the future. Added to that, of all countries in Latin America, Argentina has one of the best educated and professional middle classes. It has the structure to make good use of its potential.
Those natural qualities always existed, but they are linked now to the prospect of financial stability with low inflation. We all remember those decades when inflation in Argentina seemed extraordinary to us in Europe. Now inflation is low, running at European levels. There is also the promise of stability guaranteed by democracy. We were all impressed by the recent election in Argentina, when the Government had an austere budget before the election to meet the financial crisis and went on to win a genuine victory. Of course, the future will be tough; it always is. Argentina has to bed down those reforms but we can all recognise the promise and the stability. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe said, that provides great opportunities for British companies.
Many British companies are already investing in Argentina. Lloyds bank is a long-established investor there and British American Tobacco, British Gas, Cadbury Schweppes, Glaxo, Unilever and a host of others are investing in Argentina—not simply trading, but putting money into bricks and mortar and enterprises in that country. In fact, UK investment in Argentina is the highest of any European country. There is scope for much more such investment.
The World Bank estimates that for Argentina alone, the investment needed in all sorts of infrastructure by the year 2000, only five years away, is colossal. For example, it requires investment of over £2 billion in railways, £4 billion in gas, £5 billion in water, over £10 billion in electricity generation and nearly £10 billion in telecommunications. So the list goes on. Those requirements offer huge opportunities for British firms. Although we are taking some of those opportunities, we could do much better. There is scope and hope for Argentine investment in this country. We are the natural gateway for Argentina to get into Europe, and London can provide the banking services and other areas of expertise that Argentina needs if it is to exploit European markets.
Although it has been growing, direct trade—the import and export of goods—has not been so good. It came from a low point after the Falklands war and although figures have been encouraging in recent years, our exports to Argentina are still not as high as those of France and Germany, nor as high as our direct investment in Argentina merits. This country must invest in, and work hard at, that. There is an encouraging amount of activity, including trade missions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), who has just stepped down as Minister for Trade, was a leading light in taking trade missions around the world. He did not neglect South America. Nor did my hon. Friend the Minister's predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones). They understood the importance of Latin America and helped to create potential here.
I am glad that this country is in the process of creating a British-Argentine chamber of commerce. One already exists in Buenos Aires but we have now created one here to encourage activity and interest in Argentina and to help companies that wish to trade with Argentina. We must continue to work on those links between the United Kingdom and Argentina.
Although we have come some way with trade and investment, we must make the most of that potential. We still have much work to do. I welcome the growing links, not only in trade, business and investment but in all other areas. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), I welcome the fact that the potential now exists to exploit and develop the raw materials around the Falkland Islands. That is good for all three countries involved: the Falkland Islands, the United Kingdom, and Argentina. Once we start to do that, those links will inevitably grow stronger and work better.
The growing affection and practical working between Argentina and the United Kingdom was emphasised last year when a statue was unveiled in Belgrave square to San Martin, the founder of Argentine freedom. That was a great symbolic event which I hope and believe will, over the next few years, set the tone for the enduring links between our two countries, which go back so long and inevitably have such potential.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I congratulate the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) on once again being one of the major participants in a debate on Latin America. He may be pleased to know that I have followed these debates with interest over the years. He may not know that I have a long-standing interest in the region. However, it has always struck me as perverse to have a debate that covers the whole of that massive area.
I have listened with interest to points made on both sides of the House this morning. While I accept that the euphoric view of the world put forward by Conservative Members is reflected in reality in some areas, it disguises the fact that the major problems in Latin America have been glossed over, except in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). The problem of poverty in the region is enormous and human rights abuse in different parts of Latin America is at


horrendous levels and is no better than in previous years. Debt and the way in which structural adjustment programmes have borne down on the poorest people in the region have led to massive human catastrophe. In addition, the problem of drugs—narco-trafficking and narco-terrorism—present challenges not just to that region but to the entire world.
So we should not enter this debate complacently. I recognise that, in such a diverse region, there are areas of great success and I wish to deal with those first. I commend to the House the excellent report, produced in July by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, on trade with Brazil and with Argentina. The report pays considerable attention to the massive power of those markets and points out that Mercosur is well on the way to becoming the fourth most important economic bloc in the world. That is vital for Europe because, if we are to avoid the serious danger of the world breaking up into competing economic blocs. Europe's relations with Mercosur are central to Britain's interests and those of the Latin American countries, particularly the four countries within the Mercosur union.
Brazil is already an economic super-power with a tremendously important economy. Unfortunately, our balance of trade with Brazil is highly unequal. I do not criticise Brazil for that; it is up to British industry and business to get out there and sell itself within that region. Our relations with Argentina are enduring despite history, particularly the Falkland Islands war. Britain is still a major investor in both those countries and British industry, business and employment have a considerable base in those areas. That is part of the success.
Conservative Members talked about political stability in Latin America. In Argentina, Brazil, Chile and other parts of Latin America, there is now a level of political stability that must satisfy all those with an interest in our relations with the area.
Because of the lack of time, I shall now move on to some slightly more contentious issues. I apologise to those with an interest in the areas that form pockets of stability. While those are important to us, it is equally important that we recognise and place on record some of the problems that exist in the region. We must recognise that debt and the structural adjustment programme that brought on the debt crisis have produced massive social consequences in many countries of Latin America.
For example, in Peru 12 million people—some 55 per cent. of the population—live in abject poverty. Nearly 50 per cent. of children under five suffer from malnutrition and the level of human rights abuse is connected with that poverty. Peru's drugs trade places it firmly as the narcotics regime of the world. That is not surprising when we examine the figures that underlie the problem. For 1 hectare of land in Peru devoted to the cultivation of coffee, a farmer would expect to receive $1,300 a year in return; for 1 hectare of land devoted to the cultivation of coca, the same farmer would receive $10,000 in return. British farmers—I say this without ill will to British farmers, who are particularly good at making as case for the best crops and prices here—will understand why farmers in Peru are forced to make the same harsh economic choices. We must recognise the crude economics of the drugs trade in poor countries.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us what he would do about the debt problem?

Mr. Lloyd: The world must heed the calls for debts to be restructured or written off. No progress will be made unless we are prepared to recognise that the poorest people in the poorest countries can be relieved of that burden of poverty only by debt write-offs.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Gravesham is aware of the relationship between poverty, debt and drugs trafficking. He must be aware that that has created a problem in this country. If he wants to do something practical about it, he should accept the need to deal with the debts of certain countries. The hon. Gentleman cannot escape the logic of that conclusion.
The lack of proper international co-operation in tackling the drugs industry is also a problem. Narco-terrorism occurs throughout the world, but specifically in Latin America. If our country is not prepared to play a constructive role in combating it, we shall miss an opportunity to do something about a problem that affects our people directly. We must also be prepared to develop crop substitution programmes and offer investment in alternative farming techniques and methods to people in drug-producing areas; otherwise we will miss an opportunity to do something that would also practically benefit our people. I concede to the hon. Member for Gravesham that such practical steps have been taken, but we are not doing enough and no one should pretend otherwise. We have not recognised the scale of the drugs problem that exists in Latin America and in our country.
Certain Caribbean countries are on the narcotics route from Latin America to Europe and the United States. The stability of their societies risks being destroyed by the power of the drug barons.

Mr. Arnold: What would the hon. Gentleman care to say about the banana regime, particularly in relation to the Caribbean islands and the offsetting effect in Latin America'?

Mr. Lloyd: The problems of the banana regime reveal some of the worst excesses of believing the mantra that free trade is the solution to all problems. There is no doubt that the United States is exerting considerable pressure to open the market for bananas to Europe. That pressure is being exerted in the interests not of Europe or the banana-growing nations, but of those United States companies which, through their own commercial decisions, have been squeezed out of the European market.
It is not in the interests of Britain nor in the interests of our long-term relationship with Jamaica and the Windward Islands for the banana regime to be ripped up. I hope that the Government accept that Britain's long-term interests have already been set through the type of investments that the Government have made in the banana industry in the Caribbean. It would be gross folly to throw away that investment and to see Europe flooded with bananas imported from central and south American countries that have not cheap labour, but practically slave labour.
I urge the Minister to acknowledge that not only do we have a moral obligation to maintain the current banana regime but that it is in our long-term economic interests to do so. I hope that that answers the question of the hon. Member for Gravesham. If the banana regime collapsed, Jamaica would be plunged into abject poverty and the


destabilising effect would be hard to comprehend. Such economic destabilisation has already resulted in human rights violations in large parts of Latin America.
I have a long-term interest in Guatemala. The latest intelligence reports suggest that its human rights record is not measurably better than it was at the height of the war there some years ago. It may be better according to absolute numbers, but that is an odd calculation considering the work of death squads organised by the paramilitaries and the police. In that country, not only political opponents but people from all walks of life disappear. The United Nations' verification mission reported "grave and repeated" human rights violations and blamed "persistent impunity" for the lack of progress in ending those abuses.
I must put on record that the current President of Guatemala has done precious little to rein in the security forces and the army, who are most guilty of persecuting the innocent and the blameless. The world cannot simply sit back and ignore what has happened in that country. We cannot ignore the fact that we are training Guatemalan police. We must be given some account of the function of that training at a time when that police force is not subject to proper control.
We know that Colombia has many problems because of the narcotics trade, but it is also suffering because of the violation of human rights. According to Amnesty International more than 1,000 people have been extrajudicially executed by the armed forces or paramilitary groups. We know that attacks against community leaders and human rights activists are a significant feature of daily life in Colombia. No great steps have been taken to improve human rights there. The country is locked in anarchy; Colombian political leaders have said that the budgets of the drug barons and the drug cartels are so enormous that they threaten to subvert totally that state.
Once again, the links between poverty, human rights abuses, an army out of control and the narcotics trade are overwhelming. The hon. Member for Gravesham may smile at the idea of the army being out of control, but I must remind him that the Colombian army was able to sabotage a change in the law which would have meant that cases involving kidnappings and disappearances at the behest of the army were brought before civil courts. Instead, those cases are still heard before military courts and are therefore not subject to the control of the elected Government of that country.
The existence of a notional democratically elected Government does not offer any guarantee of the basic freedoms and standards that we would expect of those with whom we would like to deal on an equal basis. The hon. Member for Gravesham and other hon. Members have mentioned Cuba. I have just returned from that country. I am not an apologist for the Cuban regime, and I raised the issue of human rights abuses with the Cuban Government. Human rights are indivisible from all other issues whether one is talking about Cuba, Colombia, Guatemala or anywhere else.
One of the great problems from which the Cuban people suffer is the misguided blockade that America continues to impose on that small country. A recent editorial in The Guardian described it as an act of "gross pettiness". That is an appropriate description given that at

a time when the United States has eased restrictions on China, Vietnam and North Korea, it still continues its peculiar ideological battle with a tiny island in the Caribbean. I was pleased to note that when the Minister for Science and Technology went to Cuba, he described that blockade as blinkered. He spoke not only for the Government but for people in Britain and Europe.
It is not in the interests of the Europeans or of Latin America that Cuba continues to be isolated. Cuba should be brought back into the family of nations in that region and the family of nations of the world. The United States would do us all a service and a favour by recognising that and removing the blockade.
This is the first opportunity that I have had to speak in a debate about Latin America. I said at the beginning that such debates are, by the nature of the region, diverse and wide-ranging. I apologise for the fact that I have missed out far more subjects than I have been able to mention in such a short space of time, but I freely concede that such debates are important. It gives us an opportunity to discuss a region that is vital to the United Kingdom.
I repeat that Britain's self-interest, Europe's self-interest and our role in the world depend heavily on our forging the strongest possible relationships within and between the countries of Latin America. We should be part of the process of supporting their development, and we should take our share of exchange with Mercosur and, more generally, with the whole of that region. It is important for the world; it is important for Britain's narrow self-interest. In those terms, the fact that this debate exists pays tribute to the fact that this is a region that is perhaps as important as any for the future of Britain and of the world.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) on introducing the debate and on bringing the subject back before the House. His expertise on Latin America is well known and his knowledge is invaluable. His contribution to the debate took us a long way forward in the discussion of our relationship with Latin American and south American countries.
I welcome what the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) said about the importance of our relationship with Latin America and that region. I agree that we should trade heavily with the region, in our own interest and in their interest, and continue a dialogue designed to help them in their development.
Remarkable political and economic changes have occurred in the region. Apart from Cuba, democracy is universal and has been further consolidated in the past few years by a series of peaceful and open elections. In 1995, elections have been held in Argentina and Peru, and next month they will be held in Guatemala.
There has been an economic transformation. The economy has been opened up and inflation has been reduced. Structural changes have been adopted, privatisation programmes pursued and debt re-scheduled. The pace and depth of change may vary from one country to another, but the trend is unmistakable and, in my opinion, irreversible. Latin American economies have grown at a rate second only to the Asian Pacific rim countries, and their import markets have grown substantially.
Everywhere there is evidence of Latin America entering the world stage: Mexico's joining the North American Free Trade Area and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; Chile joining the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation and negotiating to join NAFTA; the summit of the Americas, which achieved more concrete results on regional free trade than did the rival APEC summit in Bogor; co-operation on non-proliferation issues; participation in United Nations peacekeeping; aspirations to the UN Security Council; or movement towards closer relations with the EU by Mercosur, Mexico, Chile and Latin America as a whole.
Not all has been plain sailing. The hon. Members for Stretford and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) concentrated heavily on some of the problems that have arisen. In 1995 the Mexican economic crisis occurred, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) said, but there has been rapid recovery. We should all welcome that, as he did. There has also been a dispute between Peru and Ecuador, some problems between Venezuela and Colombia and political uncertainties in Ecuador.
The Mexican crisis and the economic adjustment that it necessitated have been traumatic for the people of Latin America and for the whole world. Argentina was affected when the crisis created liquidity and banking difficulties, and Brazil was hard hit for a while. However, all those countries have acted decisively and I believe that they are now back on the road to economic prosperity and are making progress.
The hon. Member for Stretford mentioned some problems in the region. He emphasised the problem of human rights abuses, and I assure him that the Government are conscious of the need to work with the Governments of all countries concerned to ensure that such abuses are wiped out. There are still far too many instances of such abuses throughout the region. We shall work closely to try to resolve that problem. It is, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, partly the result of the poverty in the region, as is the drugs problem. We are working, as much as we can, to help them on the road to prosperity and to help combat the drugs trade.
The hon. Gentleman appeared to complain about our training some police forces, and especially about some training that we give in Guatemala. However, only by giving proper training and by encouraging police forces to act as responsible police forces should act can we help to prevent the abuses to which he rightly drew our attention.
Despite all those difficulties, the United Kingdom remains confident that Mexico specifically and Latin America as a whole have laid the basis for an increasingly prosperous and stable future and will overcome the problems that we have discussed and any future setbacks.
One lesson that the international community could learn is the need constantly to be vigilant in the surveillance of key economies, even when monitoring a country with an excellent track record of economic reform. I believe that the Mexican crisis took most experts by surprise. We must ensure that we are not taken by surprise again.

Mr. Corbyn: Which Mexican crisis is the Minister referring to? Is it the financial crisis or the earlier crisis in the Chiapas region? There is a connection between the

terrible poverty in southern Mexico and the uprising and the later agreement that was reached—forced on Mexico by the United States of America.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I was referring to the economic crisis. I believe that that has been resolved. I was in Mexico earlier this year and I discussed the Chiapas problem with the Mexican Government. They are conscious of the difficulties. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that poverty is a significant factor. The Mexican Government are now trying their hardest to resolve those difficulties and to reach a democratic, stable and peaceful solution to the Chiapas difficulty.
The conflict between Peru and Ecuador has obviously caused us substantial concern, not least because both countries are very good friends of ours. Such conflicts are anachronistic and they damage not only the images of Peru and Ecuador but the whole region. We were impressed, however, by the determined effort of the Rio protocol guarantors to achieve a ceasefire and set in train a process leading to a long-term settlement of the dispute. I believe that that is now achieving its ends and that the relationship between those countries is rapidly improving.
The long-standing border disputes between Colombia and Venezuela lead to raised voices from time to time. They were exacerbated earlier this year by a clash between Colombian guerillas and Venezuelan marines, resulting in the loss of some Venezuelan lives. However, both countries, as close partners in the increasingly successful economic group of three—Mexico, Colombia and Venezuela—are working hard to settle those problems diplomatically.
Thankfully, neither the important structural reforms to economies nor the new spirit of regional co-operation has been put at risk by disputes in the region. The transformation is irreversible. Moreover, the changes in Latin America are opening up new opportunities for Britain.
We once enjoyed a predominant economic position in the region, and it is important that we now recover it. There remains a large reservoir of strong good will towards Britain and we must ensure that we tap it to the full.
British assets in the region are considerable. We have diplomatic representation in every country. British academic expertise on Latin America is second to none. The British Government are actively encouraging those positive developments.
In 1992, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made the first ever visit by a serving Prime Minister to Latin America. The former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), visited Latin America three times in the past four years. There is a regular and growing flow of Ministers travelling in both directions.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the issue of sustained ministerial relations, the Minister will know that the question of the Brazilian Atlantic rain forests was discussed, and indeed it was discussed by the Latin American group with Paolo e Flecha Tarso de Lima and the present ambassador. It concerns economic policy and cocoa prices. I do not expect the Minister, off the top of his head, to give any answer to this, other than an assurance that the specific European concerns in relation


to trade, prices and possible consequent damage to the Atlantic rain forests have been taken into account. Indeed, that subject was mentioned by the Prime Minister at Rio.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue and for not expecting me to give him an impromptu reply. I shall consider the subject closely. The importance of the rainforest is fully recognised by Her Majesty's Government.
I am glad to be able to announce to the House that, with effect from September 1995, the United Kingdom has acceded to the Organisation of American States as a permanent observer, with our ambassador in Washington, Sir John Kerr, as the United Kingdom representative. The OAS is a unique forum for discussion of hemispheric affairs throughout the Americas. It has been given an important new responsibility by the summit of the Americas, especially in overseeing the consolidation of democracy and good government in that region. Most of our European partners are already observers. We have been applying for some time and the fact that we have now acceded to that organisation is a useful step.
Several of my hon. Friends have mentioned the Falkland and Argentine oil agreement. It is, of course, extremely welcome and marks a step forward in the relationship between our two countries. It is important. It demonstrates the fact that we can set aside our long-standing disputes over the sovereignty of the Falklands and re-establish good relations with Argentina. We hope that we shall be able to use the oil agreement as a catalyst to improve the already excellent bilateral relationship that we enjoy. The non-governmental Argentine-British conference in Oxford in September discussed ways of improving links between the two countries. I think that it was held in my old college, which I take as a good omen, especially in a sporting and cultural context.
Military contact talks to be held in Buenos Aires later this month will discuss a graduated improvement in military relations—part of a step-by-step process that has been in progress for two or three years. We hope to sign a double taxation agreement later in the year.
I should like to concentrate my remarks on the trade that we enjoy with Latin America. As the hon. Member for Stretford recognises, it is of vital interest to this country. The trade is growing at an impressive pace, and increased by 27 per cent. in 1993 and 21 per cent. in 1994 to more than £2 billion. This year, following the Mexican crisis, the increase is lower, at more than 11 per cent., but exports to South America generally are up by a further 20 per cent. Despite that growth of UK exports, our share of the market is disappointingly low—1.7 per cent. compared to our share of world trade which is about 5 per cent.
British investment in the region offers a better picture. After the United States, Britain is the second largest investor. British investment rose by 60 per cent. between 1991 and 1992, to £4.7 billion. But we do not seem to be able to carry that increase over into our export markets, which is a matter of substantial concern to us.
It is for that reason that the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in association with the Confederation of British Industry, have launched the Link into Latin America trade

campaign. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister formally launched the campaign at a conference in January at CBI headquarters in the presence of every British ambassador accredited to Latin America. The aim is to make British companies aware of what Latin America is like today rather than the stereotyped image of it which some people seem to hold and which is outdated and inaccurate.
A co-ordinated media strategy has been developed to generate wide coverage of the positive changes that have taken place in Latin America and the increased business opportunities in the region. A programme of conferences, seminars, trade missions and VIP visits to the region have been organised. In the eight months since the campaign was launched, more than 30 events have been attended by more than 1,200 UK companies and representative bodies. For example, a highly successful and well-attended conference was held on 21 September in London to promote opportunities in Mercosur. The conference was opened by my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and a keynote speech was delivered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Ministers from each of the Mercosur countries were present and spoke at the conference.
Nine export promoters from the private sector have been seconded to the DTI with specific responsibilities for Latin America. A significantly larger programme, supported at trade missions and trade fairs, has been run this year and is in the pipeline for 1996. As Latin American Governments have opened their markets, the Export Credits Guarantee Department has returned to the region. A series of premium rate reductions has been made for markets where competition was particularly acute.
The Foreign Office's network of commercial sections in British embassies in the region stands ready to support the campaign. Trade promotion is one of Britain's fundamental foreign policy aims. Britain's prosperity depends on success in external trade, and the emerging markets of Latin America offer one of the most promising areas for the expansion of that trade. In parallel with the launch of the Link into Latin America campaign, commercial sections throughout the region have been strengthened and new posts have been opened, including ones at Porto Alegre and Curitiba in Brazil, and Monterrey in Mexico.
We have also sought, with success, to increase bilateral co-operation. We have negotiated investment protection and promotion agreements and double taxation conventions—or are in the process of doing so—with the most important markets. Visa abolition, anti-narcotics and air services agreements are other examples of the practical advances in co-operation that have been achieved with Latin America.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe said, there is a need to focus on medium-sized and smaller companies. In the past, some of the attention has been focused wholly on large companies and what might be described as the great and the good. I believe that the greatest opportunity for expansion lies in attracting our smaller companies to trade in the region. To do so, we need, first, to focus on what is needed in those countries and, secondly, to identify the British companies that can provide it. It is to that end that the Link into Latin America campaign is now directing its attention.
On the more general issue of United Kingdom and European Union aid and trade co-operation with Latin America, our technical co-operation programmes in the region are modest in size—they were £27.3 million in 1995–96—but they are much valued locally. Their size has roughly doubled over the past five years. The scheme focuses on natural resources, the environment and aid to the health and education sectors. We are also strengthening the assistance that we give towards promoting good government. Our aid programmes have been highly praised by many Governments in the region for their effectiveness and value. We also contribute substantially to EC aid in Latin America.
The British Government also strongly support the move towards closer relationships between the European Union and Latin America. Last year the EU agreed a basic document on policy towards the region. In 1994 and 1995, successive European Councils at Corfu, Essen and Paris agreed to develop proposals for deeper relationships with Mercosur, Mexico and Chile.
The EU already has a high-level dialogue with Latin American groupings. The UK values both the EU-Rio group dialogue and the San José dialogue between the EU and central America. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis), attended both the EU-Rio group and the EU-San José ministerial meetings in Paris and Panama last year. I hope, if my diary permits and the party Whips allow me, to attend meetings in Bolivia and Italy next year.
We welcome recent moves to re-assess the San José dialogue in the light of democratisation of the region during the decade that the dialogue has been taking place. We support recommendations that the focus of the dialogue should be widened to cover economic as well as political co-operation. There has been considerable progress in negotiations on political and economic agreement with Mercosur, Mexico and Chile during the Spanish presidency.
We welcome the initialling of the new EU-Mercosur framework agreement in Montevideo on 29 September. The final agreement should be signed in Madrid at the European Council in December. We also support the

ultimate objective of agreeing to an inter-regional association agreement, including the progressive and reciprocal liberalisation of trade in accordance with World Trade Organisation rules.
We welcome the decision taken on 10 April by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee for a new EU-Mexico agreement that would provide for trade liberalisation and enhanced political dialogue to replace the existing EC-Mexico trade and co-operation agreement of 1991. The scope of the new agreement was set out in an EU-Mexico joint solemn declaration signed on 2 May this year. I hope that we can make early progress to enable approval of a negotiating mandate for talks with Mexicans at the Madrid European Council in December.
We also greatly welcome proposals to strengthen EU relations with Chile to reflect its economic development and political stability. The UK supports the decision of the 17 July Foreign Affairs Council to adopt the most ambitious option for a new bilateral EU-Chile agreement, which will provide enhanced political dialogue and trade liberalisation.

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am afraid I have only one minute left. I had intended to answer the hon. Gentleman's question about Antarctica at the end of my speech, but I shall do so now. We have not yet agreed on the placement of the secretariat for that operation. We are prepared to consider any country that is not in competition with us with regard to our Antarctic rights, but Chile and Argentina do not accept the United Kingdom's claim and, therefore, would not be suitable places to locate the secretariat. However, our views remain open as to where it should go.

Mr. Corbyn: That is short-sighted.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I do not think that it is short-sighted. The United Kingdom Government must protect the United Kingdom's interests.
In conclusion, the area is a very important to us. The trading opportunities are magnificent and the whole region is becoming more democratic and prosperous. We must ensure that we take full advantage of any opportunities that may arise.

Drugs Misuse

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: The fact that the House of Commons has responded to the request by many hon. Members for an Adjournment debate on the issue of drugs misuse shows that the House can respond to a situation that is causing concern in the country. If anyone in Scotland had any doubt about the scale of the drugs misuse epidemic—especially among our young people—events this summer have confirmed the seriousness of the situation. The level of concern in my constituency is unfortunately reflected in the constituencies of many of my colleagues and that concern is unique in my 13 years as an elected representative.
Deaths in the Strathclyde region directly connected to drug abuse will almost certainly reach the horrific figure of 100. The issue of drugs misuse has been pursued by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but I do not hesitate to mention my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) and for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster). I do not think that anyone would take exception to my mentioning the courage displayed by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams), who has had a lasting effect on public perceptions by taking on the violent and criminal men and women who supply the drugs to Scotland's streets.
Concern about drug misuse is expressed not only by politicians, but by a number of responsible Scottish institutions. The Glasgow Evening Times has conducted an extremely effective campaign which enabled the public to report anonymously the names of drug dealers and their areas of operation. It has been sobering and frightening for me to recognise in the newspaper's reports people and locations known to me in my constituency. I think that other hon. Members have had similar experiences.
The Scottish media have expressed concern about the drugs problem and have got behind the campaign to encourage the Scottish Office to do something about it, particularly with regard to Temazepam. The Daily Record, The Herald and The Scotsman have played an honourable role in that campaign. The immensity of the problem has also been recognised by Strathclyde police, who have launched Operation Eagle—an operation against drug dealers the size of which has never been seen before. It is aimed directly at dealers and traffickers who ply their evil trade, spreading misery, disease and despair throughout the towns and cities of Scotland. Operation Eagle was directed particularly at the Strathclyde region and it has been assisted considerably by media and public co-operation in Scotland.
Determining the exact extent of drug misuse and abuse has been difficult in the past, but, despite the lack of precise information, all indicators point to the conclusion that drugs misuse has increased substantially in the past 10 years. Scottish Office statistics suggest that the number of drug misusers nationally includes about 20,000 people who primarily inject illicit or prescribed drugs, although many other people may be involved in poly-drug abuse—the abuse of more than one substance at a time.
It is estimated that between 8,500 and 10,000 intravenous drug abusers frequent the Greater Glasgow area, which encompasses more than merely the city of Glasgow. Of particular concern is the estimate that between 33 per cent. and 40 per cent. of all young persons experiment with cannabis.
As the drugs habit must be financed, there are undoubted links between drugs and the incidence of petty crime—which may be labelled "petty" in the statistics,' but is far from petty to its victims. Drugs misuse has an enormous financial and emotional impact on family and community life and, as I have said, by the end of this year more than 100 people will have died as a result of drugs misuse.
Institutions other than those in Scotland have recognised the scale of the problem. The British Retail Consortium is involved in a project designed to produce a code of practice to assist retailers and staff to recognise signs of abuse and to advise them of the appropriate procedures to adopt when faced with that situation.
Drugs misuse is a widely recognised social issue and the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), has done excellent work in the area. In its report published in May 1994, the Committee found that the increasing drugs problem in Scotland costs almost £1,000 million per year in drug-related crime. I do not think that anyone would suggest that the situation has improved since then. Returning to the youth aspect of the problem, one Glasgow general practitioner told the Select Committee that almost half the children from a secondary school class in his area had injected drugs. That is a frightening statistic and we all have a duty to do something about the problem.
The Scottish Office also produced a report entitled "Drugs in Scotland: Meeting the Challenge", which raised several points. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) has observed acutely, the rhetoric was fine but when it came to allocating money to finance the initiatives there was not as much as was spent in other parts of the country. I am aware that several communities in my area, such as Cambuslang, Rutherglen, Halfway, Toryglen and Castlemilk East, face serious and growing problems with drug abuse.
The local paper The Reformer, which is in a good position to gauge the severity of the situation, is leading the fight against drugs. I am delighted that the local paper has undertaken such a campaign as it shows that it recognises its responsibilities to the community in leading the fight against drug abuse in my constituency. Like all hon. Members, I have my differences with the local paper on occasion, but I have nothing but respect and admiration for the campaign that The Reformer is undertaking, which will prove a direct benefit to my constituents.
Other hon. Members who manage to catch your eye to speak in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will cover many aspects of drug abuse and I am sure that most of them will mention Temazepam—a substance that has become the scourge of Scottish streets. Concern about Temazepam is not new. As early as 1988, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) highlighted the fact that something must be done to tighten the supply of the drug. He was a pioneer in that area.

Mr. David Marshall: I am glad that my hon. Friend has highlighted the fact that the use of Temazepam and Temgesics is arguably the greatest danger facing people today, particularly the young. It is particularly bad in our cities, especially the city of Glasgow. Does my hon. Friend agree that banning the


prescription of those drugs is only part of the answer? Perhaps an important part of the solution would be to ban the manufacture of such drugs entirely.

Mr. McAvoy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments; he has outlined exactly the approach that I believe that my other hon. Friends will take.
I turn now to the Government's position with regard to the problem of drugs misuse. I do not like scoring party political points against the Government as we should all be on the same side when it comes to the problem of drugs misuse. However, my sense of good will is stretched when I consider the Government's activities in the field. I had intended to give the Government the benefit of the doubt in the debate as I understand fully the need for caution in such matters. I gave the Secretary of State for Scotland the benefit of the doubt when he announced recently the tightening of conditions for the possession of Temazepam, despite evidence that leakage from the prescription process has been shown to be not the main source of supply to drug dealers.
Just in the past few weeks police elsewhere in the United Kingdom captured a haul of Temazepam with a street value of millions of pounds. It had been obtained allegedly for export, but was actually destined for the streets of Scotland. Although it is a problem throughout the United Kingdom, one fifth of the supply of Temazepam is distributed in Scotland, which has only 10 per cent. of the population. The Scottish Office should recognise the disproportionate use of Temazepam in Scotland.
The tightening of restrictions by the Secretary of State for Scotland does nothing about the supply of Temazepam. I take no pleasure in saying that his initiative was clearly a cosmetic device to create the impression of doing something in his first few weeks in office.
The scale of supply shows that prescription misuse is not a significant source of supply to the dealers. The main source is organised crime by hardened criminals who do not care about the physical and mental consequences of their evil trade. I am further confirmed in my cynicism about the Government's motives by yesterday's announcement by the Secretary of State for Health banning the prescription of the drug in gel capsule form from 1 January 1996. When that form of Temazepam is used for injection, it can lead to amputations.
Everyone will welcome further steps towards the Government banning the drug, but I have no doubt that the pressure exerted by my colleagues over a considerable time and the fact of today's debate forced the Government to make an announcement yesterday in an attempt to stave off public criticism. It is a sign that the Government are detached from reality when they believe that manoeuvres and devices in the House of Commons are a satisfactory response to a serious problem facing people in Scotland.
It is crazy that the restriction on prescribing Temazepam in gel form which was announced yesterday by the Secretary of State for Health will not be imposed until 1 January 1996. Although a Scottish Office Minister is replying to the debate, the people of Scotland and the United Kingdom are entitled to ask why 1 January 1996 was chosen. Is there some special reason for the delay other than the suspicion that cost is a factor in allowing people to run down stocks? How can a drug be safe on 31 December 1995 and unsafe on 1 January 1996? It is not logical or rational and arouses suspicion that the

Government are not seriously interested in the problem and are more concerned with the costs both to themselves and to suppliers and manufacturers than with people's safety.
The Government will bear a heavy responsibility for what happens between now and January. The announcement by the Secretary of State for Health does nothing about the real problem, which is not the prescribing of Temazepam, but the manufacture and supply of the drug which will still find its way on to the streets of Scotland. Why will the Government not ban Temazepam? The medical world is quite clear that there are alternatives and, in the absence of any reply from the Minister, the only logical reasons can be cost or stockpile, but how can they be measured against the misery and death of a whole host of people in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom?
Many people acknowledge that society is changing. The matter was raised by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and there is support for a review of how drugs feature in our changing society. The Government show no sign of realising that we need a strategy with vision and have no grasp of the action required now to protect our young people who are coping with massive youth unemployment and a culture that includes the social use of drugs.
People of my disposition—and probably my generation—find it hard to understand the concept of the social use of drugs. I accept that older generations are not the best judges of younger generations. The problem has also been identified by the Scottish Affairs Select Committee. Although I am on the conservative side of the debate, we owe it to society to have a clear view of where we are going and give young people proper advice. I am not much given to using dramatic language, but I have no hesitation in condemning the Government for their drift and delay which will lead directly to many deaths in Scotland.

Mrs. Irene Adams: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) was absolutely right when said that drugs misuse is not a party issue but one that should concern all parties. Everyone should be concerned because it is doing our nation no end of harm and we are not finding the answers that we need. Like my hon. Friend, I would like to concentrate on Temazepam, the drug that has affected my constituency most over the past few years.
It is now some two and half years since I and my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) approached the Scottish Office with our misgivings about the use and misuse of the drug in our constituencies. We were first approached by doctors at our local hospital, who were concerned about the increased number of amputations which they said was due directly to the misuse of Temazepam. The jelly form of the drug is melted down and injected straight into the veins of addicts. Unfortunately, the drug resolidifies in the veins and that leads to amputations and severe maiming.
At the time, the Scottish Office issued a directive asking health boards in Scotland to inform general practitioners about the misgivings surrounding the drug and to ask them to be careful about prescribing it. General practitioners responded to that and a voluntary ban on


prescribing the capsule form of Temazepam was fairly effective. In the past three years, however, problems have increased, not only in Scotland but in the north-east of England, particularly in the Manchester area, and the misuse of Temazepam still continues.
We decided to find out why so much of the drug was on the streets if GPs in Scotland were not prescribing it. We now understand that, on paper, Britain exports more Temazepam than it manufactures. We found that difficult to understand until we realised that the drug has run out of its patent.
Temazepam is manufactured by some 10 manufacturers in the United Kingdom. Anyone can set up as a pharmaceutical wholesaler, as no particular expertise is required, and obtain export licences for particular drugs from the Department of Trade and Industry. Armed with an export licence for Temazepam, one can buy any quantity of the drug from the manufacturer. However, the system seems to be breaking down and it would appear that such licences are not being policed in the way we had hoped. Will the Minister look at that issue in particular, because the drugs are not leaving the country, but finding their way on to the back streets? They are causing abject misery the length and breadth of the country particularly among young people, although many people who were prescribed them in the first place became addicted to them.
Temazepam is really a sleeping pill, but it is also hypnotic and hallucinogenic. It is used by drug users as a downer after amphetamines have been used as uppers. Those people are addicted to more than one drug, but it is the prescribed drug that kills them. Temazepam is a real killer. It is wrecking lives and families. In Strathclyde alone, many deaths this year have been attributable to it.
During the recess, the new Secretary of State for Scotland has taken some action. Two and a half years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) and I asked for the drug to be rescheduled, so that unless someone caught in possession of a large quantity—and I mean a large quantity; I refer not to addicts in possession of two or three capsules, but to dealers in possession of 5,000—had a prescription for that amount, he would be guilty of a criminal offence. Over the summer, Temazepam became a schedule 3 drug, and only yesterday we heard that its prescription in capsule form was to be banned.
I am afraid, however, that that action was too little, too late. It might have had some effect if it had been taken when we asked for it. The banning of the capsule may still have some effect—it may discourage some manufacturers—but I fear that the health service may not now be those manufacturers' biggest customer. Will the Minister examine the position? Who are the biggest customers? Is the industry exporting far more of the drug than is being used in the health service? If all that we suspect to the happening is indeed happening, the continuance of the manufacture of the drug is a serious problem.
The medical profession tells us that there is no longer any real use for Temazepam—that there are many alternatives, and that the banning of the drug would not constitute a loss to the profession. I am not a great believer in bans of any kind, but the further I have gone in investigating this drug, the more convinced I have

become that there is no legitimate use for it and no reason for us to retain it. Not only has it caused the misery that I have described; it has led to drug wars in 'my constituency, with drug barons fighting it out on the streets for territories—very lucrative territories. The drug is manufactured at a cost of 3p a capsule, but sells on the streets for between £1.50 and £3 a capsule. It does not take a mathematician to calculate the profit margins.
We must first consider banning the manufacture of the drug in its jelly form before, perhaps, banning it in its entirety. It could be phased out over a period if the Minister considers that a helpful option—although I must tell him that every day for which it is available poses the danger of another death: another family left motherless, or without a much-loved son or daughter. There is no longer any need for the drug in the health service; the only need seems to be that of abusers on the streets.
We are not addressing ourselves to the wider issue of drugs in general. Temazepam is no more than a drop in the ocean of that misery. Other drugs are abused much more widely; Temazepam just happens to be the drug that was abused in my area, and my area just happens to be where the bubble originally burst. The increase in the misuse of drugs over the past few years has given us all cause for concern. We need to take an overall look at the misuse of drugs, perhaps through the establishment of a royal commission, and we must be willing to accept all that such a commission has to say, although some of it may not be palatable to all of us. We must approach the matter with open minds, and ask ourselves what people mean when they talk of "social drugs".
I am of the same generation as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), and I am not sure what is meant by "social drugs", but perhaps we should be big enough to try to understand. We should examine the long-term effects of such drugs: what are they doing to people, and what are they likely to do to them in 10 years? We should have a complete policy on drugs, covering both criminals and addicts. We are not currently addressing the problems of drug addiction. People are suffering great ill health because of their addiction and the absence of help. It is very easy for the young to take to that way of life, and very hard for them to return from it.
I congratulate Strathclyde on playing a particularly important role in controlling the misuse of drugs in Scotland. Strathclyde has been on the ball from day one—far more than any politician. It is on the front line: it knows what is happening on the streets, and is addressing the problem. But it can only deal with one side of the coin—the criminal aspect. It cannot deal with the health issues; only the Government can do that, and they can do it only by appointing a commission to examine the overall problem of the effects of drugs on society and the other crimes to which they lead. There is no doubt that drugs lead to petty and, in some instances, very serious crimes. In my constituency, they range from shoplifting, through petty burglaries and car thefts, to murder.
I ask the Minister to suggest to his colleagues that a commission be established as quickly as possible, so that we all know where we are going and have a clear purpose.

Mr. Tony Banks: May I broaden the debate slightly? The subject is drug abuse


generally, although my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) and for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) have spoken specifically about what is going on in Scotland. Of course I am not unaware of the problems there—who could be, after reading the newspapers?—and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North for taking such a brave stand. We know of the personal problems associated with that stand.
One of the problems with Temazepam is the fact that it is legally available, like other substances that are not banned and can be bought by kids in shops—as well as from dealers who push prescribed drugs. Last week, I visited various universities in the United States, and the subject of drug policies in both that country and the United Kingdom, and attitudes towards those policies, arose continually. As I have made clear, I take a particular stand on the matter; but there is no difference between the enforcement policies of the Government and those of the Opposition. Both parties need to rethink their position, because enforcement is not working, as the examples that we have heard today clearly show.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Temazepam is not legally available except on prescription?

Mr. Banks: The distinction does not really constitute a difference. We all know that; what is interesting is that cannabis—a soft drug that can relieve pain—is, ludicrously, not available for doctors to prescribe. The whole drug regime is riddled with nonsense. That is why I endorse what my hon. Friends have said: we must take a careful look at this matter and stop our knee-jerk responses. We need to look at it coolly and rationally, and I believe that a royal commission is the best way forward.
Billions of dollars and pounds are being spent on both sides of the Atlantic to try to stop the drug trade, but as a result of all this expenditure, more people are now doing drugs and the drugs that they use are cheaper. That proves that enforcement policy is not working. There is no point in the police and the enforcement agencies announcing that they have captured another large supply of cannabis, heroin, crack or cocaine, and everyone applauding, while the price continues to fall on the streets because more and more drugs are coming in.
The prisons are full of people who are there for drug-related offences. Statistics in the United States—their statistics are accurate because our Home Secretary is not in charge of their prisons—show that 70 per cent. of inmates in federal and state prisons are serving time for drug-related offences of one kind or another. I suspect that if we ever had a proper look at this country's statistics, we would come up with a similar percentage.
As to health, it should be remembered that people taking soft drugs do themselves less damage than those who smoke or drink—yet the latter do not have to buy their products on prescription. Alcohol and nicotine are freely available in the shops, under licensed conditions. Imagine what would happen if any Government tried to ban them—which they should do on health grounds, instead of banning cannabis. If such a ban were attempted, the criminality of today's Glasgow would seem like a vicarage tea party compared with what would happen once the international mafia moved in with supplies.
Next comes the question of the extent to which people should be able to exercise personal choice when it comes to the recreational use of drugs. Legalisation would mean that we could start to do something about quality. One reason why kids take Temazepam and other substances is that they fall into the hands of drug pushers and dealers. There is no quality control or regulation, and neither drug enforcement nor drug education is working. The problem now is that kids have to admit that they are doing something illegal in the first place, which constitutes a disincentive to seek help. With legalisation would come control and regulation and licensing, and much more effective drug education.
I never usually intervene in Scottish debates because I am not someone who wants to end his life rather abruptly, but the fact is that this is a subject that embraces not just Scotland but the whole country. Of course the criminal activity in Glasgow is vicious and nasty, but I can tell my Scottish hon. Friends that similar things go on in the streets of London—in Hackney, Lewisham and my part of the east end murders take place all the time, as do burglaries and street crimes. Most, if not all, of these offences are drug related.
Legalisation could eliminate this criminal activity as well as bringing about some of the other benefits that I have listed. I am in favour of legalisation, or at least decriminalisation. A range of countries in the European Union are liberalising their regimes in respect of drugs, so policy across the Community is inconsistent, and that leads to drug tourism.
I echo what my Scottish hon. Friends have said; I know that they face vicious problems in Scotland and that some awful people are involved, but if we took a cool look at decriminalisation or legalisation and set up a royal commission, there would at least be an end to the knee-jerk responses of which the Government, and some Opposition Members, are guilty. We could then move forward on the basis of knowledge, not prejudice.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: I want to focus on the problems of Temazepam, but I certainly endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has said. This is not a peculiarly Scottish problem; drug abuse is to be found in every major city.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) on securing this debate, which shows his typical determination to represent his constituents. I want to concentrate on the problem as it affects Paisley and the west of Scotland. We have heard this morning from my hon. Friends about the problems associated with Temazepam—or jellies, as they are more commonly known on the street. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams), who has been at the forefront of the battle against Temazepam, mentioned that it is used as a downer. A common problem in many of the cities and towns of the United Kingdom is that it is also sometimes mixed with other drugs such as heroin, or with alcohol to form a cocktail for some other effect.
We have also heard of the worrying trend among drug users—either because they cannot get the quantity of Temazepam that they require or because they no longer get a buzz from it—to give up swallowing the jelly


capsules and instead to bust them open, heat them up, liquidise them and then inject them into the bloodstream. That is just like injecting a thrombosis—once the stuff gets into the bloodstream it has the effect of clotting the blood, and people have to have limbs amputated.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North mentioned the problems experienced in Paisley, Glasgow and elsewhere with territorial battles between drug barons trying to carve out their share of the market. As she said, it is a lucrative market, since the drugs can be manufactured for as little as 3p with a street value of as much as £4—certainly never less than £1. The drug barons know exactly what they are doing. They know that they are trading in human misery and they know the anguish that they are causing to families.
Sometimes hon. Members speak out and tackle these problems head on. When my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North and I did so, she and her family were subjected to death threats and went through very difficult times. Although stands have to be taken, and it is all very well saying that we will not be intimidated and will fight on, it is very worrying when families become involved. Like my hon. Friend, I pay tribute to Strathclyde police, who have been at the forefront of the battle against drugs and have done a first-class job. They were very supportive of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North and me in difficult circumstances.
The problem of Temazepam is not new. It was raised some years ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall). Likewise, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North and I took it up with the Scottish Office some years ago. Although the Secretary of State's action this summer was welcome, it was recommended as long ago as 1993 by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, a Government-appointed body. Taking so long to act does the Government no credit; but it would be churlish not to welcome this summer's initiative, which many of us had campaigned for. It is helpful in that it has become a custodial offence to be found in possession of Temazepam without a prescription, and it introduces import and export controls.
It may seem a trifling point, but as my hon. Friends the Members for Rutherglen and for Paisley, North have said, this should not be a matter of party politics: we must all stand together on it. It was therefore disappointing, when the Secretary of State for Scotland came to Paisley to make his announcement, that he did not have the courtesy to inform the local Members of Parliament who had campaigned for these changes. We would certainly have supported his initiative. There was no need to behave in that fashion. It would have been appropriate to involve the newspapers that have campaigned so hard alongside Members of Parliament to have these changes made, particularly the Glasgow Evening Times, the Daily Record and, in my area, the Paisley Daily Express and the Paisley and Renfrewshire Gazette, all of which have made a contribution.
As my hon. Friends have said, the ban on prescribing Temazepam is a very small step forward and is little more than gesture politics, because the basic arithmetic of the situation shows that the amount of Temazepam on our streets cannot possibly come from doctors prescribing it in surgeries. When a doctor prescribes it to a legitimate user, it will be on the basis of one capsule, or jelly, per

day. A month's supply is 30 capsules. That is what an abuser uses in one day. No one will convince us that there are 30 old-age pensioners for every drug abuser in Scotland being prescribed Temazepam legitimately. The arithmetic does not add up. When we tabled questions on this subject, we found out that, curiously, Britain exports more Temazepam than it manufactures, because phantom pharmacists, the people who set themselves up as wholesalers of Temazepam, are buying it for export and circulating it on our streets.
I shall make a few points about what more can be done, because we do not want to level criticism at the Government. Like my hon. Friends who have spoken, I favour the total ban of Temazepam, on the grounds that there are alternatives. A total ban would be clear-cut and final. One of the advantages of that would be that one should not be carrying Temazepam. Failing that, let us at least have a total ban on the jelly formulation immediately.
I would like to see the tablets go, too. I believe that if Temazepam must be prescribed—I am not convinced that it needs to be—prescribe it as a solution. The equivalent of one measure of Temazepam could be put into a quarter pint of solution. It would be no hardship for anyone using it legitimately, before they go to bed at night, to drink a quarter pint of liquid, but the drug abuser is not going to drink 10 pints of the stuff to get his buzz. The advantage of prescribing it in a solution would be to make it very difficult to distribute. The drug dealers would have to go around in milk floats. We would know who they were.
I have written to the Secretary of State for Scotland and, indeed, the President of the Board of Trade, about a limit on the amount of Temazepam that is manufactured, and my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North referred to this. Why does Britain manufacture so much more Temazepam than we need? Why do we not immediately put some limit on it? If the Government insist that there has to be a supply of Temazepam, limit it to what is required legitimately.
Another area that has not been addressed is the gun laws. The amount of crime that is associated with Temazepam has shown that it is far too easy to get hold of firearms. That has to be looked at, too.
As we have discovered in Paisley, another area that needs to be addressed is adequate witness protection, because if one is going to ask people to come forward, one must remember that the people against whom they will have to give evidence are evil. They are evil drug barons making mega profits and will take action against witnesses unless they are properly protected. We know of cases that have been dropped because witnesses have pulled out at the last minute.
We must also address confiscation. If someone is convicted of dealing in drugs, the courts must act and must have the power to ensure that those people cannot come out of gaol to their ill-gotten gains.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. May I also point out that there are others who need protection, in addition to witnesses? I am referring to those people who have the courage to come forward to the police, to inform them of the activities of drug


pushers. Sandra and James Coyle in Port Glasgow have been threatened with death because they had the courage, the guts, to come forward in such a way.

Mr. McMaster: I endorse what my hon. Friend has said. Indeed, before I came out this morning, I saw a news bulletin on ITN about a case in London, in which someone had to give up his home and is now living in bed and breakfast accommodation because he gave evidence against someone—not a drug baron—who was prepared to threaten him with murder, and that is in an area where there is a witness protection scheme, so what hope is there in places like Strathclyde, where there is no such scheme?
We must look at the positive side, because Paisley, in particular, but also Glasgow and other areas, have had a lot of bad publicity because of this problem. I am fed up with people approaching me, often in the Lobbies, and telling me what a terrible place Paisley must be. It is still a good town and it still has an awful lot going for it. We must have the support not only to deal with the problems but to get back a positive image, and the best way in which the Government can help to do that is to give our young people hope, so they do not feel the hopelessness that encourages them to get into drugs.
We need action soon, because the longer we take, the more we talk about it in the Chamber and in the newspapers, the more warning the drug barons and the drug industry will have that they need to find alternatives. If we are to stop Temazepam and ensure that there is not an alternative ready to take its place, we need action now.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House and, in particular, to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) for not being here at the beginning of the debate. I have come hot foot from the Ukraine and I just could not get back earlier than I did.
I welcome this debate on drugs. We have too few debates in the House on this horrible problem. I do not apologise for intervening in what hitherto has been—from the tenor of conversations that I have heard—largely a Scottish debate, because this is not a problem confined to Scotland; it is a United Kingdom problem, and, indeed, as I found in Kiev, it is also a pan-European problem.
There are special problems in Scotland and there are horrible problems in Edinburgh, which in particular has built up a reputation for having a problem with drugs. I was glad therefore that there was a special Government White Paper on drugs in Scotland, issued broadly at the same time as the Government White Paper on tackling drugs together in the United Kingdom. At the end of the day, I am absolutely convinced that we will not solve the problems of drugs until we have vastly more health education in schools and better education of all of the people who come into contact with young people, not only teachers but parents as well. The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) was correct to mention the positive part that the media can play in this.
I shall make three comments. First, on Temazepam, I share the concerns of Opposition members. I believe that there is a very strong argument for banning it, if not completely at least in its jellied form, which makes it the easiest form of drugs to take, particularly when mixed

with other drugs. I ask my hon. Friend on the Front Bench for his support on pushing that forward in Scotland and persuading English Ministers to take the same step.
Secondly, Scottish prisons. I am concerned about the introduction of compulsory drugs testing in Scottish prisons unless it is supported by necessary treatment and counselling. This should also be made available to prisoners once they are released. So often, one can encourage young prisoners to come off drugs while in prison serving their sentence, yet as soon as they return to the outside world, they are lured back into the drugs culture, because there just is not the same form and type of advice available to them outside. I have written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland about the matter, especially with regard to Scotland. I have not had a response as yet; I am not criticising my right hon. Friend because I wrote very recently. I believe, however, that this is a terribly important point.
I must react to the speech by my personal friend, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who could not resist the temptation to raise the question of legalisation in this drugs debate, as he has done in every previous drugs debate. It is just not correct to say that legalisation is being adopted in other states in Europe. In some countries, there is a lack of inclination or ability to apply the law, but the law has not been changed and the official attitude towards the law has not been changed.
It is a superficially attractive argument that one can reduce the criminality associated with drugs. I fear, however, that although legalisation might reduce criminality in the short term, it would increase health problems and health costs in the short and the long term, and it is not a route that I believe we should take. As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West knows, the Council of Europe is at this moment studying the matter. I hope that the Council will conclude, in conjunction with pressures from those, like myself, who take this view, that we should not consider legalisation in this country or in Europe generally.

Mr. William McKelvey: I will try to keep my comments as short as possible because this is a debate of such importance and we really need far more time than we have at our disposal today. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) has done us a service in securing this debate and I hope that he will go on to secure further debates because the problem will not evaporate overnight and will be with us for a long time to come.
I congratulate the heroic stand that was taken by the Paisley Members, and I especially congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) who underwent a traumatic experience when those who were making such high profits attempted to bully her. That was understandable but unforgivable. The way in which my hon. Friend stood up to that was a credit to us all.
I admire the courage of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). It takes courage to stand up in today's climate and to say that we ought to look at a problem to which the solution is not simply to weigh in with more police raids, impose stiffer sentences and clap more people in gaol. That does not cure the drugs problem.
The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs carried out an investigation into drugs and we visited America. Our eyes were really opened to the possible extent of the problem in this country. According to The Philadelphia Inquirer, Glasgow is known as the junkie capital of Europe. The Americans know about the difficulties we have in Glasgow, in Strathclyde and throughout Scotland.
I must tell the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) that Edinburgh does not have a very bad reputation for drugs—quite the reverse. The needle exchanges were started in Edinburgh, despite opposition from the Scottish Office. It has been shown clearly that an AIDS epidemic has been prevented. The people of Edinburgh and the Lothians are to be congratulated on being the initial group on this side in the fight against drugs.
When we were in America, we were able to get figures from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West said, the Americans at least keep the figures and we were allowed to see them. In 1992, the FBI figures showed that 535,000 people were arrested for the possession, sale or manufacture of marijuana. In six cases, life sentences were imposed; I am talking about the States where life means life. That seems outrageous when one considers that there is no real evidence that marijuana is any more dangerous a substance than tobacco or alcohol.
Among those who enjoyed the whisky tasting last night in the House, there were no signs of great concern about how much whisky was being tasted and whether it would do any harm. Moderation was shown, as always, and an enjoyable evening was had. One can imagine that there would be a revolution in Scotland if we attempted to ban alcohol.
The States gives the prime example of what happens when alcohol is banned. Billions of dollars were made in a short period and the money that was stashed away is the money that backs the drug barons of today. Fortunes were made illegally during Prohibition and the money was then used to finance prostitution in Cuba and drugs throughout the world.
The figures are available in America and I will give some of them because they provide an insight into what happens if all that one does in the drugs war is to argue the case for getting the people involved off the streets and into prison. I understand why the police are, quite rightly, moving in Paisley. They had to attempt to remove the threat in an area that had begun to be run by the drug barons. They were determining who could live in peace and who could not and, in many cases, who would live and who would not. There was a spate of shootings and the position was unacceptable and intolerable.
For those who argue that the way to stop drugs is to spend more time on interdiction—prohibition—and more severe punishment, it is worth while looking at the results in the United States. There are 440,000 prisoners in local gaols and 87,000 in federal prisons. We can add to that 2.7 million people who are on probation and more than half a million on parole. The figures represent the highest proportion of the American population incarcerated in the country's entire history as well as the highest proportion incarcerated in any country in the world. There are many people in gaols in America, which are bursting at the seams. The Americans are building more gaols, yet at the

same time, the FBI admits that there is more heroin on the streets of New York now than there was a decade ago. The approach has totally failed.
Even the hard men of the drugs enforcement agency, who apply the law, said to us that much of the money spent on law enforcement last year—$24 million—was wasted and would have been better spent on education of the younger generation to save that generation. I doubt that we can save the present generation and solve their drug problems. At least, however, we must start pouring money into an education system that is understood by everyone to stop the next generation. History has shown that people look for intoxicants and that we cannot simply keep on banning them or clapping people in gaol for using them. We must educate people about the use of drugs. If people then want to pursue that path, that is up to them, but we must try to educate people out of such a path.
I agree with those who say that we should have the courage to have a royal commission. We should say that whatever the findings of that commission—I have a pretty good idea, if a logical group were to look at the case logically, what would emerge—we should take progressive steps. We should take progressive steps irrespective of how much unpopularity is shown towards us as politicians, especially when an election is pending.

Mr. David Marshall: Like my hon. Friends, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) on initiating this much-needed debate on the misuse of drugs. As he said, many hon. Members have campaigned on the problem over a number of years. I recall that in 1981 or 1982, I accused the then Scottish Office Health Minister, Russell Fairgrieve, and the Government of being far too complacent in their attitude to the growing problem of drug misuse in Scotland.
Along with others, in 1988, I campaigned to have Buprenorphine and Temgesic brought within the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to make the supply of or the unauthorised possession of such drugs a criminal offence. The then Home Office Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), seemed to agree with me in a letter he sent to me in September 1988. Sad to say, however, the measure has just not worked in the way that we hoped it might. We have now reached the stage at which there is no alternative. We must ban the manufacture of these drugs now. As my hon. Friends have said, they are not necessary. They serve no useful purpose and there are more beneficial alternatives.
As well as banning those drugs we must impose the severest penalties on anyone who attempts to manufacture them after they are banned. Nothing less will suffice. Either we are serious about the problem or we are not, and if we are not we might as well give up. If we are serious let us take much more positive action than has been taken so far.
In connection with another aspect of the drug issue, I congratulate Councillor Bill Perry, convenor of Strathclyde regional council, on his excellent "Cut the Grass" campaign, which is an attempt to reduce the sale of drugs paraphernalia. It is an affront for shopkeepers and other traders openly to promote the sale of items used to encourage drug use in our communities.
I have here a reply to me from the Minister dated only five days ago. Although it is encouraging and may be a step in the right direction, it is neither clear nor positive enough, and to some extent it passes the buck to chief constables and procurators fiscal.
I suggest to the Minister that there are similarities with the situation involving solvent abuse, which was at its height in the early 1980s—although, sad to say, it is still a problem. At that time many hundreds of shopkeepers, especially small shopkeepers, were making substantial profits by selling glue to children. That problem was tackled with any degree of success only when two or three shopkeepers were successfully prosecuted and put in prison. The rest quickly got the message and either stopped selling glue altogether or made suitable arrangements to sell it in a responsible manner, only to adults who had a legitimate use for it.
If that is what it takes, I suggest that people who persist in selling paraphernalia for using, or rather abusing, drugs should be prosecuted and gaoled. It seems the only way to make them desist from those obnoxious methods. I do not believe that any trader needs to sell such items to earn a living. If that is the only way in which someone is willing to operate he should not be in business, he should be behind bars.
Like those who have spoken before me, I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Rutherglen, for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster), for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams), for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) and for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), all of whom have long-standing commitments, which have sometimes meant personal risk to themselves, to attempt to do something to tackle what is arguably the most serious problem in our communities today.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun about the need for education. In Scotland there is a great need for rehabilitation for the victims of drug abuse. My comments have been largely directed at the need to tackle those who supply or manufacture drugs, or who encourage that evil trade, not at its victims, who have my greatest sympathy. We could do a lot more in the social sense to help those people, but I have no sympathy for those who encourage, promote and profit from dealing in drugs or drug-related materials. They deserve all that is coming to them.
Either the Government are hard on crime or they are soft on it. Today they have shown neither the will nor the capacity to tackle the problem as it should be tackled. We must do our utmost to eliminate the problem of drugs as far as possible from our streets and cities throughout Scotland and the United Kingdom.

Mr. John McFall: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friends on their campaigning on the drugs issue over the years, especially the summer campaign that they have undertaken. I feel that the Government's ban on Temazepam is not unrelated to the political pressure that has been exerted on the subject for months and even years. Many people in Scotland share that view.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, we are focusing on the problem in Scotland today, simply because we feel that it

is especially pressing there. A study undertaken in Glasgow by the World Health Organisation in 1993 showed that there were 8,800 drug injectors there, 70 per cent. of whom were males under 25 who had been injecting for seven years. The vast majority of the injectors were unemployed, and 90 per cent. had had nothing more than temporary jobs. Most lived in deprived areas.
There is no doubt about the remarkably strong relationship between drug misuse and neighbourhoods characterised by high unemployment, low income, overcrowding and other problems. Yet there is no Government policy on how to tackle deprivation, and apparently no interest in developing one.
Operation Eagle has been mentioned. My hon. Friends and I laud and congratulate Chief Constable Leslie Sharp and others on that initiative. But we must remember that it is a 90-day campaign run by Strathclyde police. There is no money from the Scottish Office, and because there are not the resources to take it further it will terminate at the end of the 90 days.
One positive measure that the Government could announce this morning would be to pledge assistance to Strathclyde police and other police forces in Scotland with the courage and vision to undertake such initiatives in their local communities. The Minister would certainly receive hearty congratulations from the Opposition if he gave a positive commitment this morning.
The Government's approach to drugs to date has been disparate. They need a total policy. Figures from the Library show that in 1992–93 they spent £42 million trying to tackle drug misuse, but we must ask what impact that money had. The problem is ever increasing and becoming more widespread, so the Government's action can have had little impact. It is incumbent on them to rethink their policies.
A ministerial task force bulletin considered the issue of drugs, making many positive recommendations, but to date the Government have acted on few or none of them. For example, why are crisis intervention centres in Aberdeen and Dundee not established as soon as possible? Residential sites to deal with drug misuse are necessary, yet we have only 60 beds in Scotland for that purpose, while the problem increases day by day. That is inadequate. When will the Government assist local authorities to ensure that there are more residential beds?
We also need drug action teams in every area. The reform of local government provides a good opportunity for the Government to ensure that when the new authorities take over on 1 April, drug action teams are co-ordinated for every area to provide the community-based services required.
The Secretary of State has made many noises about law and order and drugs over the past few months, and he has mentioned mandatory drug testing. I have in my possession a letter from the Medical Research Council bearing out some of what the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) said, and 37 consultants have written to the Secretary of State expressing concern about the consequences of the announcement on 1 September that there will be mandatory drug testing in Scottish prisons.
The consultants are worried because that would compromise the future of the innovative, widely disseminated, successful public health initiatives pioneered to date in the Scottish Prison Service, and


would divert scarce resources away from the expansion and evaluation of drugs education and rehabilitation initiatives that are so critical in preventing future outbreaks of blood-borne virus infections in prisons, the effect of which on recidivism should be thoroughly assessed.
The Secretary of State made a glib statement on 1 September. He has not consulted anyone and has failed to understand the problem. As a result, the problem could become worse.
The Minister should take the information from the Medical Research Council and those working in the Prison Service back to the Secretary of State. We have a common goal of ensuring that our prisons are drug free, but the Secretary of State's proposal may not the best way of achieving that.
We cannot forget that the Secretary of State for Scotland was a Home Office Minister when the Whitemoor and Parkhurst escapes took place. I wrote to the Library to ask how many prison escapes took place when the present Secretary of State for Scotland was a Minister at the Home Office. I received a faxed reply this morning, saying
The Prison Service seems a little sensitive at the moment and I have been passed round several officials so far. The sixth of these has promised to get back to me but I cannot, I am afraid, guarantee when this will be.
Six officials at the Home Office were contacted, yet none has got back with the information.
The Learmont report was published on Monday, and paragraph 3.85 on page 93 states:
As an example of the Director General's over-commitment to these matters, a full day's interview with the Inquiry was disturbed on a number of occasions because Ministers required his advice. At a lower level, one of the Operational Directors said that the size of the daily press cuttings on the Prison Service was an informal `performance indicator' for the Service, not least because defensive briefings had to be provided for Ministers on every press story.
It is my information that Mr. Lewis was called away three times from the Learmont inquiry on the instructions of the present Secretary of State for Scotland. Can we trust the man who has the law and order and home affairs brief in Scotland when it appears that, for his own naked political purposes, he has been interfering with the work of the Director General of the Prison Service?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I am having a little difficulty in relating this matter to the misuse of drugs.

Mr. McFall: I shall try to help you on that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The present Secretary of State for Scotland was previously a Minister at the Home Office, and he says that law and order is his number one issue. My colleagues' message this morning is that drug misuse in Scotland is an issue for the entire community. I want the present Secretary of State to use the law and order and home affairs brief in Scotland not for his own narrow political purposes but for the entire community. My colleagues have echoed that point this morning.
Drug misuse must be tackled, but the Government do not have a policy on deprivation to assist in that process. I suggest to the Minister that if this issue is left unchallenged there will be widespread and unacceptable consequences. Young people will be corrupted and

families alienated—that is happening now—but further fear and disruption will be brought to our communities. Our public health service will be undermined and services will be over-burdened.
If we do not tackle drug misuse coherently in our communities, the consequences will be regrettable to say the least. The Government must recognise that it is a social problem and that it must be addressed at national and local levels. Nothing less than personal, communal and cultural change is required, and we want the Government to play their part in this very important exercise.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): The hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) is to be strongly congratulated on her courage, and it is outrageous that she should have received threats from any source. I endorse the support of the whole House for her principled and courageous stand in warning young people of the dangers of drugs, and she is supported by us all.
A lot of important points have been made in the debate, but I must say to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that we do not see the legalisation of cannabis as a way forward, as we believe that that would be a fundamentally flawed approach. Such legislation would lead to greater misuse and would harm individuals and society. We take this view because cannabis is not a harmless substance. It distorts perceptions and can affect driving, and legislation would send out the wrong signals. The Government have emphatically ruled it out, as did the Scottish Affairs Select Committee.

Mr. McKelvey: I should point out to the Minister that the Select Committee ruled it out by one vote.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: One vote is all that is required in the House of Commons—especially in the present climate—but I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. The majority on the Select Committee opposed it. The Government are emphatically against legalisation that would lead to the thin end of the wedge and get more youngsters hooked on drugs. We are opposed to that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) and the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) raised the subject of mandatory drug testing. The Secretary of State announced on 31 August that a programme of mandatory drug tests would be introduced in Scottish prisons under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. This is intended to complement the constructive work being done in drug treatment reduction programmes and drug prevention and education work in prisons. Edinburgh and Corton Vale prisons will be the pilot prisons, and the first phase of testing will begin early in 1996. I am glad to confirm that both prisons have in place strong drug treatment and support programmes. Following the pilot phase, random drug testing will be phased in across the prison estate.
The hon. Members for Paisley, North and for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) were right to compliment the police on Operation Eagle, and I shall return to the issue of resources. One important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes was that the media have a part to play. At Edinburgh castle the other evening, editors


from various Scottish newspapers were addressed by the Secretary of State. He said that whether or not editors disagreed with Government policy, there was one way in which they could be of substantial assistance—by warning young people of the dangers of taking drugs. My right hon. Friend went out of his way to congratulate the Glasgow Evening Times which, he said, had not always been known for its support for the Government. That is very important, and the media have an invaluable role to play in that connection.
Drug misuse is one of the greatest challenges that we face in Scotland today. It blights young lives, worries parents, takes the lives of young people who should be in their prime and leads to drug-related violence and other crime in our cities and towns. It provides the basis for huge profits made by unscrupulous drug dealers whose sole aim is to profit from the misery and despair of others.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) was right to focus on Strathclyde and he reflected the concerns of other hon. Members. I should like to mention briefly some of the actions that the Government are taking. New guidelines have been drawn up on good practice on substitute prescribing. The community drug problem service approach holds out the best prospect of reducing drug deaths by drawing misusers into treatment services. The drug crisis centre in Glasgow, which I visited recently, has performed a valuable and effective role since it was set up, and I wholeheartedly welcome that.
The hon. Member for Paisley, North rightly raised the question of tightening import and export controls. Rescheduling Temazepam tightens security requirements at pharmacies, and also tightens import and export controls by requiring licences. It is now unlawful to possess Temazepam without prescription. We believe that the police can more effectively tackle dealers, and the ban on gel-filled capsules announced yesterday will also help.
Guidelines on good practice at raves and other dance events are nearing completion and will be issued shortly, and two new packages have been issued recently to schools on drug education. Drug prevention education is now incorporated in the health education curriculum. It is vital to get the message across to youngsters at the earliest age.
I must deal with Temazepam and some of the points made in the debate.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The Minister mentioned the need to educate school children. What new proposals has he for giving support and assistance to the families of young drug abusers and misusers? Those families undergo considerable distress because of their youngsters' habits and badly need support.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman asks what role the social work department can perform. He is married to a social worker, whom I have met on numerous occasions. Resources of £40 million are being made available throughout the range of programmes. We want a strongly co-ordinated approach, which will deal with the matter. If the hon. Gentleman has any constructive suggestions on the subject, I will be glad to receive them.
May I take an extreme example of drug-related deaths, and I have met parents who have been through these extremely unfortunate circumstances? The procurators

fiscal in Glasgow have introduced a procedure of discussing the circumstances surrounding such deaths with close relatives. Common-sense advice is issued directly to injecting drug misusers on how to avoid dangerous situations and practices associated with injecting drug misuse. We believe that the new and improved system of recording drug deaths introduced in June will help but, of course, we are aiming for prevention.
The hon. Member for Rutherglen asked why 1 January had been chosen. I can explain that simply. There is a need for existing prescriptions to be dispensed. The 1 January date also gives general practitioners time to review and to prescribe alternative forms of Temazepam or other drugs.
Let me make clear to the House the extent of the problem with legal prescriptions. The information is available only for England and we must make it available for Scotland as well. Temazepam prescriptions in England decreased from 6.9 million in 1992 to 6.3 million in 1994 and continued to decrease in the first two quarters of 1995. The voluntary bans in Scotland have significantly reduced the level of prescribing and medical prescribing committees on health boards are carrying out a further review. The results will be made public in due course. That gives us an idea of the scale of the problem.
The hon. Members for Paisley, North and for Paisley, South mentioned drugs finding their way on to the streets of Scotland. Import and export licensing, in rescheduling measures, will tighten security and reduce leakage into the criminal fraternity, as will tighter new security measures. I am happy to have a dialogue with the hon. Members. It is my aim as well as theirs to ensure that Paisley, which has a fine history and which I have often visited, can be looked on with confidence for the future for inward investment and other possibilities that may arise.
The hon. Member for Paisley, South asked about illegal supplies. I said that we must deal with bogus exporters, who divert the drug to illicit home markets. The new licensing procedure will deal with that. The hon. Member has written to the President of the Board of Trade about the new controls and I have no doubt that he will receive a comprehensive reply.
I was asked about a total ban on Temazepam. As I said, it is widely prescribed legitimately and has been licensed for many years. There is not the same serious danger with merely taking the tablets as with injecting the drug. I am glad that, since the first note was drafted, the correct information has come in and I can inform hon. Members that in Scotland there are 880,000 prescriptions for Temazepam in all its forms. We believe that banning the drug in gel form will assist.
I was asked about drugs equipment paraphernalia. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) introduced an extremely important Bill on glue sniffing—a related subject. I agree that we must consider that matter closely. Legislation is available to enable us to prosecute traders, but it is sometimes difficult to do so as the articles concerned can ostensibly be valid and legal for other purposes. For example, pipes can be used as an ornament or for smoking non-prohibited substances.
Strathclyde police are being consulted to find out whether they believe that any aspects of existing law should be strengthened. It is for each drug action team to consider whether any further action could be taken to influence traders.
I mentioned resources of £40 million and, of that sum, £10 million was for drug-related activities alone and a further £8 million was for Strathclyde.
Strong sanctions are available against those who misuse drugs. The Criminal Justice Act 1987 empowers the courts to confiscate the funds or property of those convicted of dealing in drugs. The rescheduling of Temazepam will make possession an offence, with a penalty that includes a maximum of two years in prison, an unlimited fine, or both. The penalty for supplying is a maximum of five years in prison, an unlimited fine, or both.
We have to go flat out against the drug dealers, but at the same time must have a strong educational, health and social work programme in place to deal with the youngsters who are most unfortunately affected and afflicted by this scourge.
The report of the drug task force provided an excellent framework for positive action to tackle drug misuse in Scotland and priority is being given to implementing its recommendations as quickly as possible. Drug action teams have been established and will have a major role in combating drug misuse at local level. The task force drew on many expert talents from the fields of health, education, police, social work, the voluntary sector and other areas, in producing its report last October.
More than 60 recommendations were made and the report was widely recognised as providing a thorough and informed picture of drug misuse in Scotland. We are well ahead in implementing the valuable recommendations, many of which have had a bearing on the points mentioned this morning.

Mr. McAvoy: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way: as ever, he is generous in these matters. He mentioned the drug task force report. How much are the Government allocating in extra resources to those initiatives?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Resources this year amount to about £40 million. When the annual expenditure round takes place, we shall give top priority to issues affecting law and order, which this one undoubtedly does. We will be looking particularly closely

at that problem. As the hon. Member will appreciate, the Secretary of State will make a full statement on the public expenditure survey to Parliament before Christmas.
I was asked whether there should be a royal commission. The difficulty is that such commissions take a very long time and the task force has already dealt comprehensively with the issues. Its recommendations are being implemented fully and quickly.
The hon. Member for Dumbarton asked what we were doing in areas of deprivation. Some £86 million is being made available in urban aid alone to such areas, which are being assisted in a variety of different ways. Drug taking is not restricted to areas of deprivation, although it can and does occur there. We have to take the necessary action.
The task force report recognised that there was no simple answer and that the issue had to be tackled on a number of fronts. The report emphasised the absolute importance of fully co-ordinated action against drug misuse.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) will confirm that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs came to exactly the same conclusion and we intend to act strongly upon it.

Mr. McKelvey: I am proud of it.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman says that he is proud. The two studies were simultaneous but they came to the same conclusion and that is why we are right to do everything in our power to implement that conclusion.
This year we made the record sum of nearly £24 million available to health boards to tackle drug misuse and HIV-AIDS. Initial allocations total some £22.5 million, of which almost £10 million is committed to drug-related activities. Our whole aim is to concentrate on prevention and we see education as playing an absolutely key role in that connection, supported, for those unfortunate people who have become addicted, with effective services. We need to target the services and respond to the individual needs of each user.
I recently had the privilege to see the Glasgow drug problem service and I believe that it offers a good and effective combination—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must move to the next debate.

Ramsgate Harbour Access Road

1 pm

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I am grateful to have been given the opportunity to initiate this Adjournment debate on a subject which is of enormous importance to my constituents, the economy of east Kent, and the transport system of Britain and Europe—the Ramsgate harbour access road. Ramsgate has an agreeable historical reputation of being a cheerful, regency seaside town whose picturesque royal harbour has long been a focal point for mariners, yachtsmen, holidaymakers, fishermen, artists, hoteliers and seaside landladies.
Those benign images are still valid to some extent, but over the past 15 years, the outer harbour of Ramsgate has been transformed by the creation of a major shipping port. Today, port Ramsgate is the third busiest port in Britain after Dover and London and the nation's second largest sea gateway to Europe. Some 6,500 ship and jetfoil berthings take place in Ramsgate annually. Over the past decade, the number of passengers using port Ramsgate each year has increased by almost 200 per cent. to 3.5 million. The number of cars has increased by more than 250 per cent. to 473,000. The number of freight lorries has increased by nearly 240 per cent. to 261,000. The number of coaches has increased by nearly 100 per cent. to 21,000.
To put it more simply, on average over 9,000 passengers and more than 2,000 vehicles, of which over 700 are heavy goods vehicles, pass on average through port Ramsgate every day. In the peak month of August, passenger numbers reached 15,000 per day while motor vehicles averaged 3,200 per day.
This spectacular growth in traffic, which has not been seriously dented by competition from the channel tunnel, is a success story of great magnitude for the port, but it has created a nightmare of great magnitude for the road users and residents of our town. The environmental pressures have become horrendous in terms of noise, congestion and exhaust fumes. I will return later in my speech to the arguments in favour of an access road based on the need to give large numbers of Ramsgate residents a safer and better quality of life, but first I would like to say something about the transportation needs of the port users themselves.
A great seaport such as Ramsgate must give its customers—the exporters, the importers and the travellers who are its economic lifeblood—swift and speedy access to Britain's motorway network. I am pleased, in this context, to pay a genuine tribute to the Department of Transport for having recognised the strategic and economic importance of port Ramsgate and for providing finance for Kent county council to build new roads to accommodate the huge increases in traffic that I have described.
Ten years ago, when the port was just beginning its great surge of growth, the approach roads to Ramsgate from the end of the M2 motorway onwards were so woefully inadequate that my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), who is going to contribute to this debate, and I regularly used adjectives in the House such as "disgraceful " and "appalling" to describe them.
As a result of such representations from the Members of Parliament for Thanet, the Department of Transport supported a proposal from Kent county council for a road

building programme to connect port Ramsgate to the M2 and that programme has been steadily implemented. The Department of Transport has also agreed the designation of this route as part of the trans-European road network.
The first part of the programme was the dualling of the A299 Thanet way from the end of the M2 to Monkton roundabout. This £140 million project has had several of its sections satisfactorily completed and the road is now fast and safe for 10.5 of its 18 miles and the remainder is currently being built.
The second part of the programme is the 4.5 mile stretch of the A253 from Monkton roundabout to the Lord of the Manor roundabout on the outskirts of Ramsgate. This £18 million dualling project is now under construction and will be opened next year. So it can be said that two parts of the three-part programme for proper access roads to port Ramsgate are well under way, mostly either built or under construction and with funding support from the Department of Transport.
However, just as it would make no sense to build a tripod with only two legs, so it would be absurd to build only two of the three vital road links necessary to provide safe and swift access to the port. That is why I am concentrating in this debate on the missing link, the 1.5 mile final stretch of road from the Lord of the Manor roundabout down to the port itself. That is what is known as the Ramsgate harbour access road.
The Ramsgate harbour access road is now at a crucial stage of its progress. Unlike many road building projects, it enjoys a remarkable degree of support from the overwhelming majority of the people of Ramsgate. It is strongly supported by all political parties on Thanet district council. All the leading environmental lobbies accept that it is necessary. After long consultations and much popular pressure led by an energetic organisation known as the Ramsgate action road committee, chaired with great vigour by Mr. Peter Landi, over 3,300 local people wrote in support of the planning application and, earlier, over 12,000 people had signed a petition in favour of the project. Against that background of unusually strong populist and environmentalist backing, all the planning permissions for the road have now been obtained.
The Ramsgate harbour access road has reached a crucial stage. The county council now needs to secure finance for the road and has submitted its transport policy and programme, or TPP, bid to the Department of Transport with the Ramsgate harbour access road as its No. 1 priority for new funding starting in 1996–97.
There is one final administrative hurdle to be cleared which is that there is likely to be a short public inquiry, not into the planning matters—which have been resolved—but into the compulsory purchase orders for the scheme in January. This inquiry is to be held under the auspices of the Department of Transport and I would be grateful for my hon. Friend the Minister's confirmation of the likely date and the anticipated length of the inquiry. I should also be grateful for his help in making sure that the inspector's recommendations, whatever they may be, are delivered as soon as possible.
I especially wish to say how profoundly I sympathise with the residents of 10 homes in Pegwell village, on the outskirts of Ramsgate, whose houses are likely to be the subject of compulsory purchase orders and to express the hope that they will be fairly treated and receive generous compensation.
However, assuming that the public inquiry results in decisions that allow the access road to go ahead, the vital question will then be one of funding. No one knows better than a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury that the pressures on all departmental budgets at this stage of the public spending round are intense, particularly so in what in the PES jargon is known as year 1 of the survey cycle, that is to say 1996–97. However, there are three compelling reasons why my hon. Friend's Department should find space in its annual budget of some £3 billion for the Ramsgate harbour access road, which has an estimated total cost of about £23 million spread over three years.
The first reason is that the European Union has confirmed that money will be available for the road from its European regional development fund under the objective 2 programme. This funding, which is expected to be some £3 million, is in recognition of port Ramsgate's importance as part of the trans-European network and the need to sustain and increase employment in the Thanet area. For the road to receive that money, construction must start before the end of 1996 so that it meets the timescale of the current objective 2 programme. Not to accept the offer would be the financial equivalent of looking a gift horse in the mouth and saying no.
Secondly, for those who operate in the arcane world of profiling departmental annual budgets, I should point out that the year 1 cost to the Department of Transport's budget would be small. All that is needed is to make a symbolic start on the road in 1996 to qualify for the EU funding that I have just mentioned.
Thirdly, I reiterate the point about the financial absurdity of creating a tripartite road scheme and then not building the third and last leg. It makes no sense to have spent the best part of £160 million on the A299 and the A253 to provide better access roads to port Ramsgate, and then to leave the final stretch of the most vital access road of all unbuilt. "Spoiling the ship for a ha'penny worth of tar" is almost the right metaphor here, although I concede that there is a gap between the notional ha'penny and the actual £23 million.
I have concentrated on the issues of transportation and funding because those are national matters that deserve the urgent attention of Ministers and this House. Nevertheless, I conclude with a few words about the local environmental and economic issues because they are of such pivotal importance to my constituents.
Environmentally speaking, the residents who live on or near the juggernaut route to Ramsgate have, in recent years, been dwelling in a veritable Dante's inferno of noise, pollution, disruption and danger. I feel particularly for those who live in the 250 homes along the route, 107 of which are listed buildings. I also feel concern for the pupils in the two schools on the route. They and many others are crying out for the relief which they deserve and which they will get if the Ramsgate harbour access road gets the go-ahead.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister will reply to this debate because he was, with his characteristic courtesy and energy, good enough to come down to Ramsgate in August and to see for himself the problems and potential of the present situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North and I were immensely grateful to him for taking so much trouble on his ministerial visit.

With his expertise, and by being such a good listener, he could see only too clearly that the present road to the port has been virtually unchanged for half a century, dating back to the time when cars were few, juggernauts were unknown and the big ship seaport was non-existent.
My hon. Friend the Minister was also well briefed on the economic difficulties of the Thanet area, where unemployment clings stubbornly at around 14 per cent.—the highest in south-east England and the third highest in England and Wales. The port, which already creates 300 direct jobs and probably at least four times that figure in indirect jobs among port-linked enterprises such as hotels, transport companies and exporting or importing businesses, desperately needs the boost that the access road will provide. One influential organisation that recognises those economic imperatives is the East Kent Initiative, which has made the Ramsgate harbour access road its first priority on the grounds of the economic regeneration benefits that it will bring both to Thanet and east Kent as a whole.
For all those reasons, the harbour access road is the most important and positively beneficial project for Ramsgate's future that our town has seen for many years. An early decision to give the green light to a Ramsgate harbour access road for the 21st century will strengthen the port's economic success, increase employment, inspire confidence and alleviate the physical and human problems that so adversely affect the lives of many Ramsgate residents today. I therefore hope that my honourable Friend the Minister and his Secretary of State will do their utmost to give the Ramsgate harbour access road the go-ahead and the funding to go with it as soon as possible. This is a road project which the Government should want to back and should back, because it assists employment, strengthens a major communications link with Europe, takes exemplary care to protect the environment along its route, and has remarkably strong popular support among the people of Ramsgate. I commend it to the Government and to the House.

Mr. Roger Gale: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) on securing a debate on a subject of such vital local importance. I thank him and the Minister for allowing me briefly to participate.
The Ramsgate harbour approach road is central to the development of the economy of Thanet and will have a direct effect on the standard and quality of life, not only of my right hon. Friend's constituents but of my constituents in North Thanet. I share entirely my right hon. Friend's view of the awfulness of the present road to the highly successful and developing port of Ramsgate and its marinas. Anyone who has witnessed the battle of titans, as juggernaut lorries compete for the right of way on the hairpin bend, can only marvel that traffic is able to reach or leave the harbour at all. The environmental cost in damage to fine old buildings is, as my right hon. Friend said, horrific.
It may not be fashionable or politically correct to support new roads at present, but this is one scheme that will make a significant contribution to improving the environment. It has the support of all parties on the local authority and the county council, and of both Members of


Parliament who represent the area. I endorse wholeheartedly the case that my right hon. Friend has so ably made.
On 17 December 1986, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), then Minister for Public Transport, following a visit to Thanet, wrote to say that in response to our representations, the Thanet way—the main arterial road to the area—was to be dualled. Shortly afterwards, Christopher Chope, who then had ministerial responsibility, also visited Thanet and announced that the next section of the road—from the A299 to the Lord of the Manor—would be included in the dualling programme. My hon. Friend the Minister, who kindly visited Thanet in the summer, now has an opportunity to add what my right hon. Friend so graphically described as the "third leg of the tripod" and to complete that task.
In recognition of our need to be able to compete with our continental neighbours on equal terms, we have won for Thanet development status and European objective 2 status. The new Ramsgate harbour approach road is one of the keys that will help us to realise the advantages that those sources of European and Government support can bring. It will send a clear and unequivocal message to potential investors that we have faith in our development plans for the area.
So I, too, urge my hon. Friend the Minister and his Secretary of State to do their utmost to give the Ramsgate harbour approach road the go-ahead and the funding to go with it in the immediate future.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) on securing this debate on a subject to which he attaches considerable importance. With his usual assiduity, he has badgered me and my predecessors often and long on the issue of the Ramsgate harbour access road, as has his parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), who was kind enough to join me on part of my visit to Thanet in August. It was an enjoyable day and I am grateful to them both for making me feel so welcome. It was extremely useful to me because, while we hear a lot about the economic difficulties of that area, it is also important not to lose sight of its potential. On that hot and sunny August day the Ramsgate seafront was extremely attractive. I was left with the strong impression that, if the regeneration initiatives being pursued in Thanet can take root, Ramsgate's future can be bright. I want to assist in that as far as possible.
I said in August what I have to say now. Both my hon. Friends are experienced parliamentarians and will appreciate that I cannot now answer the burning question of whether the Department will accept a scheme for funding in this year's local transport settlement. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects to announce details of that settlement in the usual way in December this year. My right hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South admitted that he had been Chief Secretary to the Treasury. While one might claim a reputation in other great offices of state before any Minister, especially one in a spending Department, it is appropriate to admit that one has been Chief Secretary to the Treasury—in the case

of my right hon. Friend, an extraordinarily distinguished one. At this stage I cannot answer my hon. Friends' questions directly.
I stress that I have listened with interest to what they have said today and, on that basis, I fully understand why there has been strong local support for the new access road. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North said, Thanet plays an important role in the economy of north-east Kent. I am advised that it is responsible for 4.5 per cent. of local employment and it generates £15 million a year for the local economy. The difficulties of access are obvious. They pose problems for the future of the port's business because the current access arrangements are restrictive. Unless we find a way to improve access problems will also be caused for the local environment.
Before I talk in detail about the new approach road I should mention the action that we are already taking to help the local partnerships to regenerate the Thanet economy.
My right hon. Friend was right to point out that Thanet suffers from the highest unemployment rate—14 per cent.—of any travel-to-work area in the south-east. Sadly, my right hon. Friend knows better than I that that has remained the case for a number of years. The way to tackle that unemployment rate is to create more jobs in the area. We are continuing to work with the district and county councils, Kent training and enterprise council, the East Kent Initiative and other local partners to achieve that.
In July 1993, the Government approved development area status for Thanet. That means that grants are available to companies that initiate projects to create or safeguard jobs. In December 1994 agreement was reached with the European Commission on the objective 2 programme for use of European structural funds in Thanet. That agreement is part of a comprehensive programme that aims to develop the area as a prosperous part of the United Kingdom and Europe with a diverse economic base that provides access to employment for all sections of the community.
That programme's priorities are, first, to support industry, encourage inward investment, help local companies to expand, provide suitable sites, support small businesses with advice and training, and encourage the transfer of new technology to Thanet companies. Secondly, the programme is designed to strengthen the international links between Thanet and the rest of Europe, and develop the local tourist industry. Thirdly, it aims to ensure that the right training and guidance is available to provide skilled staff to meet employer needs.
The programme is being administered through a monitoring committee of local partners led by the Government office for the south-east. The committee has already approved grants under the programme totalling £1.5 million. The projects being supported include ones devoted to training, improving tourist attractions and supporting small start-up businesses. I understand that the monitoring committee will meet again next week to review progress over the first year of the programme and the priorities for next year.
To help meet the programme's objective of ensuring suitable sites for business development we have already accepted, as my right hon. and hon. Friend have pointed out, improved dual carriageway access to the Kent international business park. We have accepted that project as being eligible for grant under section 13 of the


Industrial Development Act 1982. That grant will complement the proposed investment by the private sector and European funding.
The reasons why areas under-perform economically are complex. In the case of Thanet, however, there is little doubt that a significant factor is poor transport links, which have been a deterrent to investment over the years. We are now working hard to put an end to what has been, in practice, the relative isolation of Thanet in the recent past. As my right hon. Friend has said, we have therefore been the paymasters for Kent's programme of major investment on improvements to the Thanet way between the end of the M2 and the Ramsgate urban area.
The old A299 was a three-lane highway dating from the 1930s and clearly not suitable for modern levels of traffic. We have so far paid £100 million in transport supplementary grant and credit approvals towards the dualling programme. When it is complete Thanet will at last have a high quality connection to the motorway network. It is a necessarily expensive project as my right hon. and hon. Friend have suggested—the total cost is around £130 million. That makes Thanet way one of the biggest local authority road projects that we have supported in the past 10 years—a considerable demonstration of our commitment to Thanet.
As my right hon. Friend said, were the harbour approach road built it would provide a new route for vehicles travelling to port Ramsgate through the Ramsgate urban area. In that way it will provide the eastern section of a strategic route, which stretches from the M2 at Brenley corner to Ramsgate harbour. I recognise that the provision of a new access road to port Ramsgate is an important part of the objective 2 programme. A new road would enable the port to continue to grow and would underpin local economic development. It would also be vital to the improvement of the area.
I understand that the local partners will be discussing a formal application for funding from the European regional development fund under the objective 2 programme when the monitoring committee meets next week.
There is certainly a strong case in transport terms for a new road. Traffic flows to the port have increased significantly since 1983, when the port was expanded and the western ferry terminal became operational. Actual growth rates have outstripped our national road traffic forecast high growth projections over the past 10 years, and have increased the pressure on the existing road network.
The present route into the port is about 3.8 km long and, to say the least, is of varying standard. It has some tortuous sections that my right hon. Friend showed me and some significant gradients that have to be negotiated. I was driven along that road by my right hon. Friend and I must say that the final bend into the docks is particularly difficult. I am not surprised to learn that heavy vehicles in particular are constantly getting into trouble on that bend and disrupting traffic hugely and disproportionately. It was perfectly obvious to me that that would happen, and is probably happening as we speak.
I also know that the route goes through the town's conservation area and runs adjacent to a large number of listed buildings and structures that are of genuine historic importance. Many people suffer from the pollution effects of traffic, in terms of noise and emissions. Sadly, that

problem is exacerbated by the fact that the traffic includes an unusually high proportion of heavy goods vehicles, as much as 20 per cent. of the daily flow, which is well above the average that one would normally expect on a major road.
In recent years minor improvements have been carried out on the route to try to improve road maintenance conditions. Pedestrian facilities and turning facilities for local road users have also been improved. While those have been successful in reducing some of the hazards, the basic conflict caused by substantial numbers of HGVs passing through residential areas still remains.
I know that a lot of thought has been given to the design of the new road. Planning permission for an earlier version was turned down because of the unacceptable impact on sensitive environmental sites on the foreshore at Ramsgate. The new scheme has sought to circumvent those difficulties by tunnelling under the Pegwell village conservation area to avoid encroachment on a Ramsar site and site of special scientific interest.
In the coming months the Department of Transport will be involved in the scheme in two ways. First, as my right hon. Friend said, a public inquiry will be held into the statutory orders that are necessary for construction to take place. My right hon. Friend said that that inquiry is planned to start in January, but my current information is that it will begin in February. Given the date that my right hon. Friend suggested, we are certainly on the right course. The Secretary of State will obviously await the report of the inspector and I do not need to remind my right hon. and hon. Friend that the inspector must take his own time. Within the Department we will certainly endeavour not to delay in terms of the decision reached by the Secretary of State about whether to confirm those draft orders.
There will be a bid for financial support. The road would be built by Kent and would require TSG support from the Department. It is the first priority in Kent's submission for new starts in 1996–97 and a bid for funding for the scheme has been included in this year's transport policies programme. Kent is hoping to secure the necessary statutory approvals in time for construction work to start in 1996–97.
The Department has been asked to provide £21.3 million in grant and credit approvals over three years. To put that sum in context, the scheme is more expensive than any of the new schemes that we supported for the first time in last year's settlement. One cannot deny that it is a large scheme. Those costs are to a large extent the result of the environmental constraints which have made tunnelling a necessary part of the project.
I return to where I began. My right hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North will understand that I cannot say now whether funds will be allocated for the scheme in 1996–97. My right hon. Friend will understand that there are always insufficient funds to support the many worthwhile schemes that are proposed, so it will not be easy for us to find resources for the approach road this year.
However, I hope that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend are at least satisfied that we shall certainly take into account the relevant considerations that they have placed before the House today when we make decisions about this year's local transport settlement.
I noted my right hon. Friend's comment that the cost in the first year would be remarkably little. It strikes me, causing me some amusement, that that is precisely the argument that I frequently adduced in arguments with his former Department—and, I may say, on those occasions when he was a Minister there, to no avail. However, he can have confidence that I am an infinitely more sympathetic Minister in those matters than perhaps he was obliged to be in his former role.

Jamaica

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I am grateful that this subject was chosen for debate because it concerns a matter that I have pursued for a considerable time.
Although I say some harsh things, that does not arise out of any hostile feelings that I feel towards Jamaica—far from it. I have the highest regard for the people of Jamaica and for the island. When, in July, I had the privilege of leading the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation to Jamaica, I was met with nothing but hospitality and good will.
However, the subject that I shall discuss strikes at the heart of human rights. It deals with a matter that is a locus of this country because the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the final court of appeal for Jamaica. Indeed, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has taken action that has ameliorated a position which it is no exaggeration to describe as ghastly.
The present debate is not about the merits or otherwise of capital punishment. I totally and unalterably oppose capital punishment, but although, among other things, I speak about conditions on death row in Jamaica, I do not seek to argue in this place for the repeal of capital punishment legislation in Jamaica, although I would wish that to be repealed.
I was told by a correspondent that, although the most recent execution in Jamaica took place in February 1988, a hangman was advertised for and I am told that a hangman has been appointed. There can be no doubt that the possibility of execution creates feelings of great anxiety among the men on death row. Indeed, one of the reasons why the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council made its historic ruling that men should not be held on death row for more than five years was that it said that it was inhuman for men to be kept on death row for so many years—in the case of the two men with whom I have been in correspondence, more than 13 years before they were removed from it, following the Judicial Committee's ruling.
My direct interest in the subject arose from the fact that, some years ago, a man on death row called Lynden Champagnie began to write to me about his plight and that of nearly 300 people on death row. As a result, a further two men wrote to me. I have therefore received correspondence from, and have extremely fat files on, the three men: Lynden Champagnie, Recordo Welsh and Everton Bailey.
When I had the opportunity of visiting Jamaica with the CPA in July, I asked whether I might visit those three men and whether I might visit death row. I made it clear that the CPA was not involved in any way in those visits. Moreover, I arranged the visits after the end of the CPA delegation because I did not think it right that it might be thought that the CPA was being represented by what I did concerning those matters.
I wish to thank our high commissioner, Mr. Derek Milton, who has just left Kingston, for his aid and I congratulate him on the splendid service that he has done for this country in Jamaica over very many years. He was the doyen of the diplomatic corps until he left, earlier this month.
What I have to say is not about the merits or otherwise of capital punishment, and it is not about the protestations of innocence that some of the men with whom I am dealing have made.
We have enough experience in Britain of men convicted of murder who have turned out not to be guilty of murder, and Superintendent Knight, the director of security at the prisons, admitted to me that a wrongful hanging was
a possibility here in Jamaica.
I shall not argue today about whether those men are guilty. I am speaking about human rights in a democracy, human rights in a parliamentary democracy, human rights in a democracy with an elected Government of a sister party of my own Labour party in the socialist international. If the conditions that I saw in Jamaica existed in a brutal dictatorship such as Iraq or an authoritarian country such as Turkey, I would be horrified, but I would not be surprised. I feel especially strongly about those conditions because they are so incongruous with a democracy ruled by a socialist party.
I therefore made it my business, when in Jamaica at the end of July, to visit three prisons. I visited St. Catherine's—where death row exists and where, as I understand it, the gallows is still present—Tower Street prison and South Camp prison. I visited death row and visited cells in the prisons. I spoke to the men whom I had especially wished to meet, but I also spoke to a great many other men.
I repeat that one of the men, Recordo Welsh, who was detained at the Governor-General's pleasure at the age of 17, has been in prison for more than 19 years. Everton Bailey, who turned 35 this month, has spent more than 13 years in death row and has been in prison for 16 years. Lynden Champagnie has just turned 37 and he was on death row for slightly less than 14 years.
Although those men have served those enormously long periods, Lynden Champagnie will have to serve another 10 years before he can even be considered for parole and Everton Bailey may have to serve another 20 years before he can be considered for parole.
I was accompanied, throughout my visits, by Superintendent Knight, who is the director of security at the prisons. Although he treated me with the utmost courtesy and consideration, his treatment of other people left a great deal to be desired. He humiliated Superintendent Aris, who is in charge of Tower Street prison, by yelling at him in my presence because he was dissatisfied with the way in which we had been received and the absence of an electric fan in his office. He shouted at several men on death row and he tried to browbeat one of the men whom I had come to visit, in my presence.
It seemed to me that, if Superintendent Knight was able to behave in such a manner in my presence, his behaviour when I was not there could not have been better and might have been worse. Indeed, although the conditions that I saw in death row were abominable, I am told by a lady called Rebekah Maxine Wilson, who has been involved with the Jamaican Bar Association and the Jamaica Council for Human Rights, that the conditions were actually improved in preparation for my visit.
I met and spoke to a man called Kevin Williams, who is on death row. He wrote to Rebekah Maxine Wilson to say that the men on death row were made to scrub down

the block before I came and that the authorities ensured that certain men would not be seen or heard by me. Kevin Williams has said that he has since been threatened by the wardens, who have informed him that, whatever the outcome of his appeal to the Privy Council, he will not leave the prison alive. One of the reasons I am naming names is that I wish the plight of the individuals to be placed on record so that the authorities in Jamaica are aware that the men are neither neglected nor forgotten and that the House of Commons is concerned about those individuals.
Death row is one of the most abominable places that I have visited in my life. It is surrounded by cages which are newly built and clearly expensive. That money could have been spent on improving conditions on death row and in the prisons rather than hemming in the inmates still further. Death row is surrounded by two high metal fences that are both topped by rolls of concertina wire. Blue-uniformed warders wielding huge clubs guard the area. Conditions are dreadful by any standards.
The men have almost no sanitary facilities inside death row. Their sole sanitary facility is a rectangular well to which they are allowed out for short periods, into which they can empty their night soil pails and in which they can wash their food, laundry and themselves.
Death row is like a huge cage with cages within it. There is hardly any natural light and, when I was there, there was no artificial light. There is a central space on either side of which are cage-like bars, from which the men reached out to me in an effort to attract my attention. The circumstances were like something out of a nightmare.
Each man has one tiny narrow cell. Some of the men have managed to get hold of grubby strips of foam rubber on which they sleep. Other men simply sleep on bits of cardboard on the floors of their cells. The authorities admitted to me that the men are kept in those conditions for 22 out of 24 hours. Theoretically, they have a maximum period of two hours for exercise, but Kevin Williams said that he was not even given 10 minutes for exercise. A man called Milton Montique told me that he had no exercise period, had to wash in a bucket inside his cell and had no eating utensils so that he had to use his fingers to eat whatever food was provided.
Complaints were made to me of attacks by wardens. I was told by several people, both when I was there and in correspondence, about a group of wardens known as the acid squad who carry out attacks on the men. Among the men whom I saw complaints were rife about lack of access to doctors. A man called Gladstone Hall told me that, during his brief ventures into the sunlight, the contrast between the darkness in which he had to spend most of his life and the little bit of light that he was allowed, hurt his eyes. His request to see a doctor had been disregarded. Other prisoners made similar complaints to me about lack of access to doctors. One of them, Everton Morrison, told me that he was in "terrible pain" and had been refused access to a doctor. A man called Kwame Codrington told me that he had not been told what his rights were, if he had any, and that he was denied blankets although it was chilly at night.
The other prisons that I visited would have been dreadful by any standards had I not visited St. Catherine's first, but my experience in St. Catherine's made them seem not quite so bad. Recordo Welsh, who has been in prison since he was 17, lives in unhygienic conditions and


has an inadequate diet. He told me that his visitors were sometimes turned away. Although he is not on death row, he is confined to his cell from 4 pm until 8.30 am the next day. His cell contains a stool which is about the right size for a kindergarten infant, bits of foam rubber and a tattered floor blanket. Of course, his cell, like all the others, has no doors, but bars.
South Camp prison, where the other two men whom I have visited are now held, was described by Superintendent Knight as
the most modern in the Caribbean.
If that is so, I am sorry for the Caribbean. The cells are roughly 2 yd by 3 yd. Four men are kept in each cell, which contains battered and stained wooden bunks. In Lynden Champagnie's cell there was a tattered blanket on the floor. There are no lights in the cell and any reading has to be done by outside light.
I am horrified to have to speak like this about prison conditions in a friendly country which one has held in great regard and which one wishes to continue to hold in great regard. But I do not regard it as a service to our relations with Jamaica to do other than make it clear what the conditions are in the prisons. These are not only my subjective views. In a report in 1992, Christopher Gibbard, who was governor of Shepton Mallet prison and is now, pro tem, prison reform co-ordinator in this country's Caribbean dependent territories, described St. Catherine's, where men are held on death row, as
the worst prison I have ever seen.
He compiled an update to his report last November and stated in that official report that the prison estate in Jamaica was "clearly appalling".
I have been in touch with the United Nations Human Rights Committee. I have been exploring every avenue, both to alleviate the situation and to try to gain the release of the men who have spent more than half their lives in prison. In July 1994, the United Nations Human Rights Committee said that the treatment of Lynden Champagnie and others was a
violation … of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
During the past few days, I have received further letters from the United Nations in Geneva, which maintains its views about the situation in Jamaica but is unfortunately unable to enforce them. Unfortunately, the Jamaican authorities are not responding to what the United Nations says.
It gives me no pleasure to say this and I am sorry to have to do so, but the Jamaican authorities are clearly not open to being shamed on this issue. If they were, they would not have allowed me into the prisons. On the wall of the superintendent's office in South Camp hangs a notice which states that the prison's mission is to ensure security, foster rehabilitation and serve all who are in its care while maintaining a united and highly motivated staff, characterised by integrity, commitment and professionalism. Every world of that is false. The men are not being rehabilitated but brutalised. The staff, who are kept in poor conditions and appallingly badly paid, are brutalised. There are too many reports of staff inflicting brutality on the inmates for those reports to be ignored.
I am aware of poverty in Jamaica and the other countries in the Caribbean and I want that poverty to be alleviated, but it seems that the Jamaican Government will respond only to economic pressure. That is why I

recommend that, while the Government are staunch in their support for the West Indian banana regime which is under threat within the European Union, they should use their support of that regime to put pressure on Jamaica to improve conditions, release those men and to abolish death row once and for all.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): First, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on his success in being called to speak in an Adjournment debate so soon after the recess.
United Kingdom-Jamaican relations are excellent and there are frequent exchanges at all levels. Her Majesty the Queen visited Jamaica in 1994 as part of her Caribbean tour. The Jamaican Prime Minister, the right hon. P. J. Patterson, visited the United Kingdom in 1993 and my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology has made two export-related visits to Jamaica, most recently last September.
Other visits this year have included those by members of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in June and members of the United Kingdom branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association who went there in July, ably led by the right hon. Member for Gorton. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer attended the Commonwealth Finance Ministers' meeting in Kingston earlier this month, and throughout the summer there have been a number of official and private visits to the United Kingdom by senior Jamaican figures, including the Minister of National Security and Justice and the Commissioner of Police. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the former high commissioner, Derek Milton, who has done some excellent work, and also the Jamaican high commissioner to Britain, Derick Heaven. They have furthered the existing excellent relationship between the two countries.
The right hon. Gentleman was very specific about prisons in Jamaica. I would like to respond equally specifically by emphasising the commitment of Her Majesty's Government to the improvement of human rights throughout the world, especially in the Commonwealth. Jamaica is an independent and important member of the Commonwealth and next month my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Auckland, New Zealand. One of the specific purposes of that meeting will be to carry forward the work on good government and human rights in the Commonwealth. Her Majesty's Government have been one of the prime movers in that field.
Although non-intervention in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of other states is a recognised principle of international law, articles 55 and 56 of the United Nations charter set out the obligation for all members of the United Nations to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights. That obligation, reinforced over the years by the creation of a framework for international promotion and discussion of human rights law, means that human rights violations are no longer insulated from external criticism or expressions of concern on the ground that the matter is exclusively a domestic one.
As to Jamaica, the House may like to know that our high commission in Kingston has long been monitoring the situation regarding human rights in that country, including the specific issues raised by the right hon. Gentleman. On many occasions, our high commissioner has discussed the matters with members of the Jamaican Government and other persons responsible for the situation on the ground.
At his suggestion, we recently invited the Jamaican Minister responsible, the hon. K. D. Knight, to visit the United Kingdom. He was here for four days at the end of last month, during which time he had wide-ranging discussions about how the United Kingdom could assist. Mr. Knight's programme included a visit to Her Majesty's prison, Downview and several of its unique aspects were of great interest to him. The British Government have donated tools and materials for a vocational training unit to assist with a prisoner rehabilitation project, and they have helped with the running costs of the Jamaica Human Rights Council.
Moreover, my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General visited Jamaica in April and met with the Minister of National Security and Justice, the Attorney-General, judges, police and prison officials. Like the right hon. Gentleman, he also visited the Tower Street correctional centre. My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, who recently conducted a wide-ranging tour of the Commonwealth Caribbean, had in-depth talks about good government issues when he visited Jamaica in August.
The purpose of his tour was to encourage Governments, both in the independent Caribbean and in the remaining British dependent territories, to consider ways of improving the administration of justice and generally to promote good government—the rule of law, honest and efficient public administration, accountability and respect for human rights.
Most countries in the Caribbean are proud of their British heritage in those fields and, in that connection, we have been giving more attention recently to ways in which we can help. It must be remembered that a relatively large proportion of law-abiding citizens in Jamaica has to put up with very poor conditions, such as the lack of running water, the lack of electricity, an inadequate urban infrastructure and squalid overcrowded accommodation which is often flooded in heavy rain. One can understand that the Jamaican Government might wish to give those areas a higher priority than improvements in prison conditions for convicted criminals.
One of the Caribbean's major problems is drug trafficking and money laundering. In this country we are well aware of the dangers of drug abuse and the threat to security posed by drug trafficking. Right hon. and hon. Members may have seen the television programme "The Yardies", which was broadcast last year. It gave a very disturbing picture of the situation in Kingston and the international ramifications of the drug trade involving people from Kingston. That visual picture put the question into context rather convincingly.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be discussing the problem of drugs in the Caribbean, both generally and specifically, with his colleagues at CHOGM. We believe that more must be done to tackle the problem of the Caribbean as a major transhipment

point for drugs not only to America but to Europe. That must be done through international co-operation, and we are raising the matter with our European, American and Canadian partners at this very moment with a view to holding a workshop that would provide a framework for further action.
I mention that point because another extremely important matter is the need to provide a way of life that would make it not so tempting to traffic in drugs. That means assisting economic and social development. One of the issues that affects Jamaica, which is a major producer of bananas and other agricultural exports, as the right hon. Gentleman said, is the maintenance of the European Union-African, Caribbean and Pacific banana regime. That regime is governed by the fourth Lomé convention. No Government have been more supportive of the regime than the United Kingdom, as the right hon. Gentleman readily accepted. We have also provided technical co-operation for the Jamaican banana industry to enable it to improve quality standards.
The right hon. Gentleman has proposed that we should withdraw our support for Jamaica under Lomé. However, apart from the fact that we cannot simply isolate one country in that way without affecting the entire structure, we believe that such action would ultimately exacerbate the very problem that it was designed to resolve. It would lead to the collapse of the banana industry, depriving small farmers of their livelihood and the ensuing economic collapse in those regions could thus render them more prone to crime, create more criminals and place yet more strain on the prison system.
I understand that the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), a close neighbour of the right hon. Member for Gorton, referred to the banana regime in this morning's debate about Latin America. He took the diametrically opposing view and said that the removal of the regime from the Caribbean states would have disastrous implications for the area. I refer right hon. and hon. Members to the debate this morning.
I am not saying that the right hon. Gentleman would like to see the bad side of everything—I know him far too well to claim that. However, perhaps he does not give enough credit to what the Jamaicans and this Government are doing to encourage the good side.
The judicial system in Jamaica is based on our own. Jamaica remains part of the Queen's realm and it has maintained the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Jamaicans are now considering whether to continue with that system. That is a matter for Jamaica, as an independent country, to decide. It is not our place to dictate to it what it should do, as I suspect some hon. Members might like us to do.
We are investigating, with the Commonwealth Secretariat and others, what initiatives we could join to help to modernise the administration of justice in Jamaica and in the Caribbean generally. We are actively pursuing a proposal that a member of the Judicial Committee should visit the Caribbean in the near future. We have now posted a legal adviser from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Caribbean to assist in the reform and improvement process, to which we are committed.
I have noted carefully everything that the right hon. Gentleman said, but I can assure him that Her Majesty's Government will continue to pursue in future, as we have


in the past, a policy of encouraging respect for human rights in the Commonwealth and specifically in the Caribbean.
We shall continue to monitor the conditions in Jamaican prisons, especially the problems of death row, as seen against the judicial procedures which apply and the social economic conditions which prevail. Our high commission in Kingston has done good work and one of its major objectives will remain to support and encourage the Jamaican authorities to address exactly the problems which the right hon. Gentleman raised.

Schools (Buckinghamshire)

2 pm

Mr. David Lidington: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue of great concern to parents, head teachers and governors in my constituency and throughout the county. I am pleased to see my hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) and for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) in their places today. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), who has been following the issues very closely, has expressed great regret that she is unable to be in her place because of a prior engagement to which she had been committed for some time.
I should like to outline the nature of the concerns and to seek a thorough and detailed response from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Schools.
It is perhaps necessary to say a few words about how the present system operates within the county of Buckinghamshire. For primary school pupils other than those who attend combined schools, the age of transfer from first to middle schools takes place at 8-plus. The transfer from middle or combined schools to secondary schools takes place at 12-plus. In the county outside Milton Keynes, a selective system of secondary education system is still in operation. Children attend either a grammar school or upper school depending upon the results of a 12-plus test. That in turn means that the reserved areas for individual secondary schools overlap. The reserved areas for individual upper schools tend to be discrete, but in some cases the reserved areas for grammar schools overlap and some upper school reserved areas are divided between reserved areas for different grammar schools.
I should briefly mention two other points. First, as my hon. Friend the Minister will know, Buckinghamshire schools produce good results, comparable with the best anywhere else in England. I pay tribute to the LEA and particularly to head teachers, their staff and governing bodies for that tradition of success in Buckinghamshire.
Secondly, Buckinghamshire LEA is a prudent spender. Every organisation is imperfect, but there is precious little fat to be cut in Buckinghamshire compared with less well-managed education authorities. I know that heads of governors have had at times some difficulties in the current year dealing with what was admittedly a tight spending round and welcomed assurances from my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment that education will be at the top of the Government's priorities for the 1996–97 financial year. In that context, it is important to stress that the fears about the possibility of a wholesale change to the age of transfer within the county derive in large part from apprehension about the financial implications of such a step.
The issue dates from 9 June 1995, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State approved proposals that Buckinghamshire LEA firmly believes have serious implications for all schools in the county. My right hon. Friend approved two changes. First, she approved a change in the ages of transfer in Slough schools which form part of Berkshire local education authority. Those changes had been sought by Berkshire and included a change from 8-plus to 7-plus in the age of transfer from


first to middle schools and from 12-plus to 11-plus in the age of transfer from primary to secondary schools. Those changes are due to take effect from December 1996.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend announced that she was planning to agree to a change sought by the governors of Beaconsfield high school, a grant-maintained girls' grammar school in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. In that case the governors were seeking a change from 12-plus to 11-plus in the age of admission and the Secretary of State decided that that change should come into effect from December 1997.
The Department for Education and Employment wrote that same day—9 June—to the chairman of governors of Beaconsfield high school. The content of that letter demonstrates the Department's awareness of the potentially grave difficulties that the decision might cause to schools elsewhere in the county. The letter said that the Secretary of State had reached her decision
after careful consideration of the arguments put forward by Buckinghamshire LEA and by other objectors to the governors' proposal. It is the view of Bucks LEA that approval of the proposal to change the age range at Beaconsfield High School would make it inevitable that they would have to change the age range of their own schools. Such a move would have capital implications requiring careful examination. In addition, the approval of the governors' proposal may affect the LEA's ability to meet its responsibilities under the Sex Discrimination Act 1976. The proposed modification to the implementation date of the governors' proposal thus aims to provide Buckinghamshire LEA with sufficient time to give proper consideration to the issues arising from the proposal's approval.
That letter reveals an awareness that the decision would cause difficulties elsewhere in Buckinghamshire and that the Department expected that Buckinghamshire LEA would have to consider seriously changes to the age of transfer in county schools.
The effect of the Secretary of State's decision can be described in three ways. First, from 1997, year 7 in primary schools in the reserved areas of Beaconsfield high school will consist of boys of all abilities together with less able girls who have not been able to obtain a grammar school place. The more able girls would have gone on to Beaconsfield high school.
Secondly, according to counsel's opinion obtained by Buckinghamshire county council, the LEA and the Funding Agency for Schools would be in breach of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 for failing to make the same opportunities available for 11-plus boys as for 11-plus girls in south Buckinghamshire. Clearly, that principle would apply elsewhere in the country if further changes were approved to the age of transfer in respect of other individual schools.
Thirdly, the county fears there will be a domino effect and that parents and governors will add to the pressure for other secondary schools to follow the example of Beaconsfield high school. There have already been indications from grant-maintained schools in Marlow in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe and in Chalfont that schools are intending to follow the example set in Beaconsfield.
The overlapping nature of school reserved areas means that it is difficult for the LEA to isolate change in south Buckinghamshire from change in the rest of the county. The reserved area for Wycombe boys' grammar schools stretches across large parts of south Buckinghamshire. Pupils from the town of Princes Risborough in my

constituency have reserved places in the Aylesbury grammar schools and Princes Risborough's own upper school, but some pupils from villages just outside Princes Risborough who are in the Princes Risborough upper school area come into the reserved area in respect of grammar schools located in High Wycombe. Pupils from the Great Missenden area in my constituency have reserved places at the Aylesbury grammar schools and also at some grammar schools in the Chiltern and south Buckinghamshire educational division of the county. I should have said earlier that I am the only Buckinghamshire Member whose constituency includes parts of three areas within Buckinghamshire's local education authority. I have followed the arguments closely.
Strong pressure is being exerted from many quarters for the whole county to seek a planned switch in the ages of transfer from 12-plus to 11-plus, and correspondingly from 8-plus to 7-plus. It must be said that there are educational arguments for such an approach: it would, after all, align the ages of transfer between schools with the key stages of the national curriculum. Pupils at key stage 1 would go to first school, and would then transfer to a middle school at the beginning of key stage 2 and to a secondary school at the start of key stage 3.
However, any such move—whether brought into effect at once, or phased over a number of years—would have considerable financial implications. First, there would be capital expenditure implications. School rolls in Buckinghamshire are already rising, and taking year 7 pupils—about 8,000 in the county as a whole—would require new buildings and other facilities in many secondary schools. The LEA has estimated, for example, that it would be necessary to provide additional buildings to cope with 100 places at Misbourne Upper school in Great Missenden and 135 at Sir Henry Floyd grammar school in Aylesbury.
According to Buckinghamshire's current estimate, about £25 million in capital expenditure would be required to provide additional school accommodation in a way that would follow existing patterns of parental preference between schools. It is difficult to see how that could be achieved within the confines of the normal formulae relating to the allocation of borrowing approvals and capital spending permissions between different local education authorities.
Primary schools are understandably worried about the impact of such a change on their revenues. For middle schools, the loss of year 7, with its additional weighting—because those pupils are sitting key stage 3—would be only partly compensated for by a change in the age of transfer from first schools from 8-plus to 7-plus. Small village first schools are now becoming extremely worried about the consequences of a lowering of the age of transfer between themselves and middle schools.
I have sketched the outlines of what is, as my hon. Friend the Minister knows from earlier discussions, a very complicated issue. My hon. Friend will be aware that the LEA and the full county council are still debating the best course to follow in the interests of parents and pupils. I am grateful for the understanding that my hon. Friend has shown in his conversations with me and with representatives of the county; let me now ask him a number of questions.
First, like my constituents, I should like to know why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the decision that she made. What arguments and evidence overrode the


considerable objections voiced by the local education authority? Secondly, what is the Department's assessment of the legal position concerning the Sex Discrimination Act? According to counsel's opinion, taken by Buckinghamshire, both the LEA and the Funding Agency for Schools would be liable, because they share the responsibility for planning for school places in the county.
Thirdly, are there examples of good practice in other LEAs that have had to deal with the problem in the past, from which Buckinghamshire could usefully draw in deciding on the best course to follow in the future?
Fourthly, will Ministers and officials in the Department for Education and Employment make a commitment to work with Buckinghamshire LEA and individual local schools to find a solution to the financial problems that I have described, which are causing great alarm in the county?
I know that a body of opinion in Buckinghamshire would like my hon. Friend to announce that the Secretary of State was prepared to reconsider her original decision about Beaconsfield high school in particular, but the view of the chairman of the education committee, certainly, is that such a decision is not to be expected, and that we must cope with matters as we now find them.
I appreciate that my hon. Friend is not responsible for drafting the annual Budget statement, and that it is beyond his power to give me some of the details and assurances that I seek today. My constituents feel, however, that the problems that I have described stem from a ministerial decision, and they and I now look to Ministers to help us to deal with the consequences.

Mr. Tim Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on raising this important subject.
I do not think that anyone has seriously suggested that there are any educational arguments against making the change from 12-plus to 11-plus. It makes a great deal of educational sense to make that change, and to fit in with the national curriculum. The arguments against it are solely financial and practical; I believe that in Buckinghamshire it is inevitable. As my hon. Friend said, we shall soon have an application from Chalfonts community college to change its status, and I suspect that, if it is consistent with the previous decision, the Department will approve that application.
I supported Beaconsfield high school's application to change its age of admission, because I believe that eventually all pupils in Buckinghamshire will benefit from such a change. I understand the difficulties, especially for primary schools, and—like my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury—I hope that the Department will work very closely with the LEA to make it work.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Robin Squire): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) for raising this important issue, and welcome the opportunity to discuss it. He was nobly buttressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) and for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), and, as he said, my hon. Friend

the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan)— my ministerial colleague—has taken a close interest in these matters for constituency reasons.
Buckinghamshire has an education system of which it can be proud, and its achievements speak for themselves; but I know that those involved in education in the county are not complacent. They want not to rest on their laurels but to extend and develop opportunities for Buckinghamshire's pupils.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury knows that it is for the local education authority in respect of its schools, and for the governing bodies of individual voluntary and grant-maintained schools, to publish proposals if they wish to change their age range. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider any such proposals on their merits. We certainly have no policy of favouring one age of transfer over another. Perhaps understandably, however, my hon. Friend dwelt for some time on my right hon. Friend's recent decision, and it seems only fair for me to respond as best I can.
My hon. Friend referred particularly to the impact of the approval of proposals to admit pupils to Beaconsfield high school at the age of 11. All statutory proposals are considered on their individual merits. The Beaconsfield proposals were considered alongside proposals published by Berkshire LEA and by grant-maintained grammar schools in Slough to change their age of transfer. Beaconsfield argued that a change in Slough would seriously undermine their viability. I assure my hon. Friend that we took great care in considering the Slough proposals and those from Beaconsfield. My ministerial colleagues and I saw representatives both of those speaking in support of, and those arguing against, the proposals, including Buckinghamshire county council. Indeed, a moment ago my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield highlighted clearly how there can be more than one viewpoint in this area.
Consideration of statutory proposals often requires the Secretary of State to balance conflicting arguments. That was so in this case and it was clearly impossible to satisfy all interests.
The decision on the Slough proposals to change the age of transfer and on those from Beaconsfield high school to admit at age 11 is now taken. The Slough changes are to take effect from next September; the Beaconsfield change from September 1997. The decision cannot now be reconsidered. Berkshire LEA and the governing bodies of the voluntary and GM schools involved are now under a statutory duty to implement their proposals.
It is for Buckinghamshire county council and for the individual governing bodies of voluntary aided and grant-maintained schools in Buckinghamshire to decide how they now wish to act.
My hon. Friend referred to the implications of the Beaconsfield approval for the duty placed on Buckinghamshire under the Sex Discrimination Act. To offer a similar number of single-sex selective places for girls and boys would not necessarily prevent unlawful sex discrimination from arising. If there is an unequal number of places but demand has been met, no discrimination would seem to arise.
Beaconsfield's proposal does not change the overall number of girls' places available, but it does change the number available in each year group and offers the opportunity for single-sex education at 11.
It is for Buckinghamshire LEA to take its own legal advice on the implications of this decision for its responsibilities. It is by no means clear, however, that approval of Beaconsfield's proposals requires a change to the age of transfer throughout the county.
I understand that the education committee resolved last week to advise the county council that in the light of resource constraints it is not appropriate to conduct public consultation on changing the age of transfer. That is a matter for that body. But it might be helpful if I said a few words about the statutory proposal procedure and about capital funding.
Let us be clear about the procedure. The local education authority or governing body wishing to consider a change of age of transfer must first consult all who are likely to be affected. Buckinghamshire has already done that for schools in the Burnham area. Consultation is an essential part of the process. It provides an opportunity for those affected—including schools and parents—to express their concerns. I know that Buckinghamshire takes consultation very seriously and provides opportunities for all views to be heard.
Having consulted, the authority or governing body must then formally resolve to publish proposals, taking account of views expressed in consultation. Following publication there follows a two-month period in which formal objections to the proposals can be made. That provides a further opportunity for schools and parents to have their say. The proposals then come to my right hon. Friend to be determined.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury knows and has said, the authority has raised concerns about funding the change of age of transfer with me. I have endorsed on-going discussions between my officials and the authority on the technical aspects.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I described the arrangements. Local authorities are given permission to borrow up to a certain level to fund capital programmes for all their services, including education. Decisions on how to use the resources generated by borrowing are entirely for authorities. They must decide priorities between services and between projects within services. The borrowing limit is not the limit on authorities' capital spending. In practice authorities can and do invest capital receipts and they can use funds from their revenue budgets for capital purposes if they wish.
In determining each local education authority's share of the national total of annual capital guidelines, priority in the schools allocation has been given to: commitments arising from projects allowed for in previous credit approvals; providing new school places in areas of population growth; and implementing cost-effective schemes to remove surplus places.
After allowing for authorities' liabilities for work at voluntary aided schools and for approved capital work at special schools, all the remaining resources are then distributed by a formula to contribute towards the cost of all other capital-related work at schools. The formula is made up of elements to meet improvement work, work at special schools and other work. Those priority criteria were agreed 10 years or more ago between the local authority associations and my predecessors. They reflect authorities' statutory and contractual liabilities. Each year we undertake

a review to determine whether the procedures should be amended, in the light of changes in the organisation of schools and of comments from local authorities and other interested bodies. Of course we would consider carefully any representations for a change in the criteria, particularly when they attract consensus support.
The capital funding of proposals is always dependent on the extent to which they can meet those agreed criteria. Discussions between my officials and Buckinghamshire LEA should ensure that the LEA has a realistic idea of the availability of funding. Where elements are unable to meet the national criteria it is open to the authority to bid for a supplementary credit approval, or SCA.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury wisely spoke about the concern felt by his constituents that the education of their children would be disrupted by a change to the age of transfer. There is no reason why that should be so. I know that if they proceed with this option the local education authority and the schools concerned will be anxious to minimise the disruption to the education of pupils. The requirement to consult gives parents the opportunity to satisfy themselves that appropriate arrangements are being made. If they have concerns, they should raise them at that stage.
My hon. Friend also referred to school concerns that a change to the age of transfer will cause upheaval at a time when they had been hoping for a period of stability—a point he made strongly to me when he recently came to see me. I understand those concerns. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that there will be no further changes to the national curriculum for five years in order to provide some stability in that area.
My hon. Friend went on to mention primary schools. I can understand the particular concerns expressed by primary schools and that some would see a change to the age of transfer as a threat. Others may, dare I suggest it, see it as an opportunity: either to respond to demand for places that they are currently unable to meet, or to add pre-school provision. I have said that the Department has no policy of favouring one age of transfer over another. No doubt primary schools concerned about the impact of possible age-of-transfer changes will raise their concerns with the authority.
The Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food published the rural White Paper yesterday. That makes clear that we recognise the contribution that schools can make to village life, not only for the education that they provide but for the focus that they provide for the community—the sense of security that they bring to the children and the balance that they give to village life. Many village schools are of good quality, are popular with parents and are within easy reach of the communities they serve.
If Buckinghamshire decides to propose changes to the age of transfer, I have no doubt that it will have regard to the principles set out in the White Paper when considering the possible closure of village schools.
I know that the LEA is concerned that if there is to be a change it should be managed in a planned and orderly way. Again, that is a matter for it, but I understand that concern. It is for those responsible for publishing proposals to propose the timing of the implementation, and I hope that any disruption or uncertainty can be minimised. Buckinghamshire has argued that, in its particular circumstance, a single implementation date for the majority of the county would be most appropriate. The


authority has, of course, begun the process of change at an earlier date in the Burnham area. Buckinghamshire based its view on the pattern of provision in its secondary schools, and, as my hon. Friend said, the extent to which catchment areas overlap.
Most recent reorganisations have been in authorities that had operated a mixed economy of two and three-tier provision and which took the opportunity to standardise. It is for Buckinghamshire to decide how to go about any change in the light of its own circumstance, but in so far as it is possible or relevant to draw lessons from the experience of other LEAs, my officials will be happy to discuss that with the LEA, and, of course, I shall be happy to do so separately with my hon. Friend.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue, and I judge that it has been a helpful debate. I have already met my hon. Friend, as well as the hon. Member

for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) and members of Buckinghamshire county council. I am ready to have further meetings if that would be helpful.
I am confident that if Buckinghamshire embarks on the process that it is considering, the authority and schools will see it as an opportunity further to enhance the quality of education that is provided for Buckinghamshire pupils.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES (No.2) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Amendments agreed to.

To be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Cumbernauld Development Corporation

Mr. Norman Hogg: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made to date on the winding up of Cumbernauld development corporation; and if he will make a statement. [36029]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): Cumbernauld development corporation's report for the year ended 31 March 1995, which is available in the Library of the House, contains details of the good progress made.

Mr. Hogg: The Minister will be aware of the considerable achievements in the Scottish new towns with regard to inward investment to Scotland. What mechanisms will he put in place to maintain the momentum of that inward investment after the new towns are wound up? Will he give an assurance that he will not simply rely on the magical or mythical equalities of market forces?

Mr. Kynoch: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I have spent some time over recent months going around visiting the new town development corporations and have discussed the future of inward investment into each of them. I was relieved when I visited Cumbernauld development corporation and met the board on 24 April to hear the report from the chairman. He said that he was optimistic about the prospects of continued success in attracting inward investment, particularly with the partnership through Dumbarton Locations.
The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear what I can now say. I have an announcement that runs on from the significant inward investment successes that were announced during the summer recess, and which are expected to create more than 2,600 new jobs in Scotland. I am pleased to be able to tell the House and the hon. Gentleman that Bi-link, a Chicago-based metal stamper and product assembler, has this afternoon announced that it is setting up a European manufacturing plant in Cumbernauld—a project that is expected to bring a further 100 new jobs to Cumbernauld and to Scotland.

Mr. Donohoe: As the Minister has travelled to all the new towns during the recess, he may have been given information about the transfer of housing stock in East Kilbride, where more than 97 per cent. of the tenants voted for transfer to the local authority. The overwhelming majority of the population in Cumbernauld did the same, as did the population in Glenrothes. Why, then, does he allow the development corporations' super-quango, the housing association in Irvine, to continue to spend money when it is quite clear that the people in Irvine development corporation houses want to transfer over to the district council? Why does he continue to allow public money to be squandered in the way that it is? Why does he not just lift the telephone and tell the corporation to transfer the housing over to the district council now?

Mr. Kynoch: It is interesting to hear that the hon. Gentleman is now against housing associations. What else

will he be against? We believe in giving people choice and in trying to ensure that they get the best possible opportunities for housing in their area.

Pre-school Provision

Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which local authorities he has consulted about the voucher scheme for pre-school provision in Scotland. [36030]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): All of them.

Mrs. Michie: When the Secretary of State announced the voucher system, which, incidentally, he did in a press statement and not on the Floor of the House—I hope that that sort of thing will stop once we get a Scottish Parliament—he said that it would meet the distinctive needs and circumstances of the Scottish educational system. Can he explain how it will be distinctive and how it will avoid following slavishly what is being introduced south of the border?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Lady may not have yet had an opportunity to read the submission from her own local authority of Argyll, which has offered to help the Scottish Office with piloting this facility and which has made a number of constructive suggestions on how we can take it forward in a Scottish context. One of the representations that Argyll made was that we should not start the scheme in Scotland until August and I am happy to confirm to the House that I am prepared to take up that suggestion.

Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Labour-led East Renfrewshire shadow authority—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—has wisely applied for the pilot scheme for vouchers for nursery education. Does he agree that East Renfrewshire is particularly apt for inclusion in the pilot scheme because of the existing combination of public sector provision, private sector provision and voluntary provision within the boundaries of the local authority?

Mr. Forsyth: The House will have noted that Opposition Members cheered at the name "East Renfrewshire", but refused to cheer at the authority's wish to allow parents in East Renfrewshire the opportunity to get vouchers to the value of £1,100 to buy nursery education for their children. I am sure that the whole House has noticed that Opposition Members look pretty glum. They, of course, cannot stand the idea of parents having choice in the matter. I note that my hon. Friend would like East Renfrewshire to be one of the authorities that pilot the scheme and I am sure that his constituents would welcome that. Unfortunately, my constituents in Stirling have to cope with a Labour authority that takes a dogmatic view and would deny parents that choice in nursery education as a result of its opposition. I will certainly consider my hon. Friend's representations carefully before deciding which authorities should pilot the scheme as, of course, we have more councils in Scotland wishing to pilot this innovative idea than we have numbers of pilots to run.

Dr. Moonie: Will the Secretary of State ensure that an area such as Fife, which provides well above the Scottish


average level of nursery schools, for three-year-olds and for four-year-olds, will not suffer as a result of the introduction of any voucher scheme?

Mr. Forsyth: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a great deal of influence in Fife. Anything that he can do to get the local authority to take a positive view of the scheme will, of course, be helpful in ensuring that his constituents get the best possible service. I very much welcome the positive view that Fife has taken on another matter—its involvement in Rosyth 2000, which is so important for employment in Scotland.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is humbug for people to go round Scotland saying that more money should be spent in education and then to take the first opportunity they can, as with this scheme where more public money is being used, to try either to boycott it or to encourage others to do so? It is especially noticeable that Scottish nationalists do that.

Mr. Forsyth: I entirely agree. Every one of the Opposition parties would much rather have local authorities deciding for parents what nursery education is made available. Only this party believes that parents should choose. Such is the Opposition's dogma and opposition to the scheme that they are actually prepared to turn away additional resources of £30 million and more simply to ensure that the local authorities tell the people what to do instead of allowing the people to choose.

Mr. Welsh: Surely nursery places should be a natural part of Scotland's national unified school system, serving 99 per cent. of Scotland's children. Why is the Secretary of State proposing changes that will fragment the unified system and divert funding from it in the long run? He proposes opted-out schools and opting-out vouchers when the only opt-out that the Scottish people want is from his socially divisive schemes.

Mr. Forsyth: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman realises how ridiculous he looks making the case for a self-governing Scotland, but being against self-governing schools. The hon. Gentleman should realise that power to the people means giving people choice and not making them fit into systems in the way in which he suggests.

Mrs. Fyfe: I begin by welcoming the Secretary of State to his new job, especially as he has been promising to listen. In that case, has he listened to the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, which found that 88 per cent. of parents surveyed said that their first preference was a local authority nursery school place, because of the high quality guaranteed in local authority provision? If he is listening to those parents, why does he not hand over the £30 million to local authorities to give people what they want? Why does he not listen to what they say that they want?

Mr. Forsyth: Because the difference between the hon. Lady and me is that I think that parents should be able to decide. She thinks that groups such as the Scottish Parent Teacher Council should decide. Even if it is right, I shall give parents choice and they will be able to choose to spend their vouchers in local authority provision, or in voluntary or private sector provision. The difference between the hon. Lady and me is that she wants to tell parents what to do and I wish to give them the choice.
I have been listening to the hon. Lady, and she takes a different line from that of her leader and from what I heard said at the Labour party conference. There, we

heard that Labour was in favour of testing and of modifying grant-maintained schools, but the hon. Lady says something different north of the border; she says that Labour policies are still to be developed. The truth is that she stands for old Labour—real Labour.

Scottish Trade Union Council

Mr. Eric Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will meet the Scottish TUC to discuss the unemployed in Scotland. [36031]

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I meet the STUC very regularly.

Mr. Clarke: May I ask the Secretary of State about the long-term unemployed, whose numbers seem to be increasing in Scotland, mainly among young people? How can the Government justify a 15 per cent. decrease in the training budget of Scottish Enterprise?

Mr. Forsyth: I am not aware of any 15 per cent. decrease in the training budget of Scottish Enterprise, but I am aware of a 15 per cent. decrease in unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I should have thought that he would welcome that. I am sure that he will be aware of the importance that we attach to training, and to the fact that most training is of course undertaken by the private sector. We want to encourage Investors in People and partnership with the STUC. Although it appears that Mr. Campbell Christie has come in for some flak from Opposition Members, I pay tribute to the role that he plays in trying to ensure that we have proper standards for training and education, and to the positive way in which he has sought to involve the trade union movement, in partnership with the Scottish Office, in ensuring more training in Scotland, which is so vital for competitiveness.

Sir Hector Monro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in recent years, Opposition Treasury spokesmen have cried doom and gloom about unemployment in Fife? Can he tell us how many jobs are now in the pipeline, and what other successes the Scottish Office and Locate in Scotland have achieved?

Mr. Forsyth: The performance in Fife in terms of attracting new jobs and investment is outstanding. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced yesterday that Rosyth would be sold to the preferred tenderer, Rosyth 2000—an example of partnership between the private sector and a local authority that offers the potential for 3,000 to 5,000 jobs. Of course, Opposition Members are all committed to policies that threaten such jobs—the minimum wage and the social chapter, which would both destroy jobs—and to the special deal for Scotland, the tartan tax, which would mean a jobs holocaust.

Mr. Wallace: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his first appearance in that capacity at Scottish Question Time and I look forward to some lively exchanges. In view of his regular meetings with the STUC, and given the high regard that he has expressed for Mr. Campbell Christie, will he also acknowledge that Campbell Christie yesterday enthusiastically presented to the Scottish people the blueprint for a Scottish Parliament produced by the Scottish Constitutional Convention? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that that offers considerable scope for improving employment prospects in Scotland? Before he


proceeds to criticise it, as will inevitably be his pavlovian response, will he do the people of Scotland the courtesy of visiting places such as Catalonia and Bavaria and see how a considerable amount of devolved government has succeeded in promoting industry and employment?

Mr. Forsyth: Campbell Christie is not right about everything, and I fear that, on this occasion, his enthusiasm for the introduction of a socialist-dominated body has overtaken his judgment. The proposals which were published yesterday by the constitutional convention are for a Parliament, nearly half of whose members would be placemen and women nominated by the patronage of the leaders of the political parties. The proposals for the Parliament feature a patronising gender programme which will offend women up and down the country. Most damaging of all, the proposed Parliament will tax people in Scotland simply because they work in Scotland, and will impose a tartan tax which will destroy our living standards and our jobs and will chase away the inward investment on which our prosperity has been built.

Mr. McFall: When the Secretary of State meets the STUC, will he keep in mind the shabby record of his predecessors? When we compare figures from April 1979 with those of June 1995, we find that there are 23,000 more claimants out of work for a year or more now than there were in 1979. The civilian work force has fallen by 44,000 since 1979, and one in five of all claimants aged under 25 are long-term unemployed. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the only option which will reverse those 16 years of neglect and the accompanying exacerbation of social divisions is a Labour Government and the establishment of a Scottish Parliament so that the needs of Scotland are put first and foremost?

Mr. Forsyth: Is it not extraordinary, Madam Speaker, that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on this subject cannot bring himself to welcome a further fall in unemployment in Scotland today? We heard about the hon. Gentleman's vision for Scotland, which appears to be entirely divorced from reality. The truth is that unemployment in Scotland has fallen steadily and has fallen today. The Opposition Treasury spokesman told us some years ago that unemployment would continue rising, and thereupon it started to fall and it has fallen ever since. Unemployment in Scotland is now below that of England for the first time since the 1920s. We have seen Scotland grow in prosperity, and inward investment brought a further 5,000 jobs in the first six months of this year alone. Why does the hon. Gentleman keep running Scotland down? Why will he not join those of us who wish to see Scotland succeed and welcome its success?

Higher Education

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many students will enter higher education in 1995–96. [36032]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): Since 1979–80, the number of full-time entrants to higher education has more than doubled. Our expenditure plans for 1995–96 assume some 44,500 entrants to full-time higher

education. As my hon. Friend will understand, the actual intakes for the 1995–96 academic session are not yet known.

Mr. Marshall: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and I congratulate him on his promotion, which is particularly appropriate given that he represents an ancient city, Aberdeen, with an ancient university. Does my hon. Friend remember the forecasts by the professional pessimists that the introduction of student loans would lead to a reduction in the number of students attending university? Do not those prove that the Opposition's policies and forecasts are wrong and that they cannot be trusted?

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I thank him for his kind words. In 1993–94—the last year for which figures are available—132,509 students were in full-time higher education courses in Scotland, compared with only 68,322 in 1978–1979. That is a testament both to this Government's commitment to higher education in Scotland and to the increasing confidence which Scots and others of all ages and backgrounds have in pursuing all of the opportunities available in higher education in Scotland.

Mr. Chisholm: Did the Minister see the survey during the summer which highlighted the fact that there has been a 30 per cent. increase in the number of students leaving university for non-academic reasons? Is it not shameful that a rising number of young people are being forced to abandon their studies because of poverty? Is that not damaging for the country as a whole at a time when there is a skills barrier preventing further economic growth?

Mr. Robertson: I am a newcomer to the Dispatch Box, so you will correct me if I am wrong, Madam Speaker, but is it possible to repeat my previous answer, as the hon. Gentleman was obviously not listening? There are greater numbers of young people and others in higher education than ever before. We are spending record amounts of money on student support—£386 million last year alone. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that that is not enough? If it is not, will he write and tell me how much is?

Shadow Councils

Sir David Steel: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of shadow councils. [36033]

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Progress is mixed.

Sir David Steel: Can the Secretary of State confirm that there appears to be a substantial difference between the notional budgets of the new councils drawn up by the Scottish Office and their forecasts of likely expenditure? If that is so, will he undertake to the House that those things will be assessed region by region, otherwise councils such as the Scottish Borders council could end up being starved of funds because of high-spending councils elsewhere?

Mr. Forsyth: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the mismatch that could arise from the new boundaries. That is a particular problem. In part, it can reflect the priorities that previous councils set—sometimes wanting to spend more money in Dundee or Glasgow, for example, than in the outward areas, for


reasons on which I can only speculate. It means, however, that there is a problem and it is one that we want to discuss with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and one that I mean to address. Of course, we would not underwrite some of the high spending that we have already seen in the unitary authorities. The jobs for the boys culture and the decisions taken on members' allowances and salaries for staff by some councils are difficult to justify, so we shall be keeping a close eye on the matter. The right hon. Gentleman makes a serious point and it is one with which we mean to deal. It is not easy to resolve within existing resources, but we mean to tackle it.

Mr. Gallie: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern at the recruitment policies of some of the new local authorities—perhaps at the number of high-earning officials who have been appointed in North Lanarkshire and Angus? Would he also say whether he shares my concern at the appointment to the North Lanarkshire authority, in a very senior position, of an elderly gentleman who is about to retire? Is there anything that my right hon. Friend can do about that?

Mr. Forsyth: It is extremely important that officials appointed to local government are seen to be appointed on merit and fairly. On the point about North Lanarkshire, I have had representations from the staff commission on that matter and it has said that it is unable to give the local authority a clean bill of health. It is a matter for the staff commission alone to decide whether appointments should be re-run. Let me make it absolutely clear to the House, however, that if the commission wants appointments to be re-run, it will have my full and absolute backing. Where there are examples of concern about appointments procedures, I expect local authorities to take those concerns into account and to do everything they can to reassure the public. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) would agree with that.

Mr. Maxton: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is growing concern among arts organisations, particularly those in Glasgow, such as the Citizens' theatre, that the ending of Strathclyde region on 1 April next year will mean the end of generous grants from that region, which will not be replaced by grants from the new, small, tinpot authorities that he has created? Will he therefore ensure that the Arts Council is given extra money to make up any imbalance that is left as a result of the ending of Strathclyde region?

Mr. Forsyth: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has so little faith in Labour councils and in the likelihood of their supporting the arts. When he returns to his constituency at the weekend, having described Glasgow council as tinpot may get him into some difficulty.

Mr. Jenkin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us elsewhere in the United Kingdom regard jealously the emergence of unitary authorities in Scotland? Would not the worst result of all be the imposition of a whole new layer of bureaucracy in the form of a Scottish Assembly? Does he care to compare youth unemployment in Catalonia, where they have an extra assembly, with youth unemployment in Scotland?

Mr. Forsyth: I do not know why, today, everyone in the House wants to send me off to Spain. I will bear the representations in mind. As my hon. Friend says, the

unitary authorities are something in which Scotland can take pride. They are a new start for local government and I hope that advantage will be taken of that new start. As he says, the English have much to be jealous about as regards what we have north of the border. A Scottish Parliament would put all that at risk, not least the generous funding that we enjoy, which the Scottish Constitutional Convention tells us will now be decided by a block grant to a Scottish Parliament—a block grant determined here in Westminster, where the number of Members of Parliament would have to be reduced, as the Liberals admit, at least privately, if not inside the convention. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) acknowledges that we would have fewer Scottish Members of Parliament here. I may be the last Scottish Secretary with the power to argue for Scotland's interests inside the Cabinet where the key decisions are taken. The Opposition put all that at risk. That is grossly irresponsible and my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to it.

Mr. George Robertson: I add my welcome to the new Secretary of State at his first Scottish Question Time and congratulate him in particular on moving from his last job as Minister with responsibility for prisons, or should I say responsibility for prison escapes, to the high office that he now holds.
On the subject of the new councils, does the Secretary of State agree that if we had had a Scottish Parliament we would never have had the wretched, gerrymandered, unnecessary, reorganisation of Scottish local government in the first place? Will he accept that giving a few powers back to local councils in Scotland and beefing up a few old quangos will be seen not as devolution but as a con trick? Given the systematic stripping of power at local level in Scotland over the past 16 years, the Secretary of State looks like the burglar who strips a house and expects to be thanked for giving back the candlesticks. When is he going to grasp the fact that the people of Scotland want a devolved Scottish Parliament and will not settle for anything less than that?

Mr. Forsyth: When is the hon. Gentleman going to grasp the fact that the people of Scotland do not want to pay higher income tax than the rest of the United Kingdom and that inward investment into Scotland would be damaged if companies could go to Wales, the north of England or elsewhere and have their workers paying lower rates of income tax? The hon. Gentleman is being grossly irresponsible.
As for the reference to prisons, I do not know whether the shadow Cabinet elections and alterations of responsibilities will touch the hon. Gentleman. It may well be that, after his performance over the summer, he is moved to some other position. Through the summer, we have put serious questions to him about the funding of the Scottish Parliament and the nature of the West Lothian question. All we get is abuse and no answers; we want answers. The people of Scotland are entitled to answers and to more than deals coming from smoke-filled rooms and threats to vital services in Scotland as a consequence of policies to which the hon. Gentleman has put his name.

Scotch Whisky (Tax)

Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will discuss with the Chancellor of the Exchequer a reduction in the tax on Scotch whisky. [36034]

Mr. Kynoch: My right hon. Friend maintains close and regular contact with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this and other matters.

Mr. McKelvey: You will be as disappointed as I am with that response, Madam Speaker.
Has the Minister had the opportunity to read the Fraser of Allender report, commissioned by Allied Distillers, and the Adam Smith Institute report, "Too Much to Swallow", which clearly show that the Scotch whisky industry has been proved to be the biggest job provider among the manufacturing industries in Scotland. They also say that the obscene tax that is being paid on bottles of whisky has already cost us jobs and is likely to cost us more. Why then does not the Minister, along with his boss, have the courage to take Scotland's case to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and tell him that, on the law of diminishing returns, it would be lunacy not to reduce the cost of a bottle of whisky, in the first instance by at least 50p?

Mr. Kynoch: It is good to see the hon. Gentleman in such good spirits this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, as a Back Bencher, I joined him and other colleagues in making representations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of the Scotch whisky industry. I am well aware of both reports that he has talked about and I have spoken to the Adam Smith Institute about its report in some depth. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the views of both reports are well known to my right hon. and learned Friend and the last time that I saw the Scottish whisky industry, it was happy with the support that the Scottish Office was giving.

Mr. Bill Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful reply to the Opposition Front Bench. I have no doubt whatever that he and his colleagues on the Government Front Bench understand the critical importance of the scotch whisky industry to the wellbeing of the export trade and jobs in Scotland. The point that we are trying to make today is that, when he and his colleagues make their representations, they have the full support of every Scottish Member of Parliament.

Mr. Kynoch: I thank my hon. Friend for what he said. I am pleased to have been on two recent export missions—one to Taiwan and one to north America—both of which included representations from the whisky industry, which have been remarkably successful for exports for Scotland and for whisky.

Mr. Salmond: Should not the Minister responsible for industry be careful about how he handles that question, as I saw the last Secretary of State for Scotland nodding during the question by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey)? The Minister has a reputation as a serial tax raiser, having voted for 20 Tory tartan tax rises in the course of this Parliament alone. Is there any hope of rehabilitation for the whisky industry? As whisky is overtaxed relative to other products, is it not costing employment and even Exchequer revenue? Does the Minister therefore regret voting for the latest tax rise of 26p on 23 January this year? Will he reverse his position and bring the total number of tax rises that he supports down to 19?

Mr. Kynoch: I am not aware of the last Secretary of State for Scotland being here, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman believes that he is here, in spirit at least. The

hon. Gentleman would do better to explain to the Scottish people and the scotch whisky industry the taxation implications of a separate Scotland. We have already seen figures of the deficit between funding and expenditure in Scotland of some £8 billion, excluding North sea oil revenue. I wonder how the hon. Gentleman plans to fund that. I suspect that the whisky industry would be sitting very worried if we went independent.

Mrs. Liddell: I do not wish to add to the peregrinations of Scottish Office Ministers around Europe but may I suggest that, given his concerns for the scotch whisky industry, the Minister might turn his attention to Geneva where, in a short time, discussions will begin again about the equalisation of tariffs for scotch whisky compared with local spirits within Japan? Will he undertake to brief Britain's negotiators on the arguments that they should use in relation to the Scottish economy? Will he share with the House the arguments that he will suggest that they use to explain why the British Chancellor of the Exchequer discriminates against scotch whisky?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to refer to the unacceptable taxation of scotch whisky in Japan, where the local brew, shochu, is taxed at one sixth of the rate of scotch whisky. She can rest assured that every time not only a Scottish Office Minister but any Government Minister is in contact with Japan, either by visiting Japan—my right hon. Friend is due to visit Japan in the not too distant future—he or she will make representations on behalf of the scotch whisky industry among many other industries in Scotland and the United Kingdom.

Inward Investment

Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the sums of money paid to inward investors in (a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland as a whole by way of (i) regional selective assistance grant, (ii) regional enterprise grants and (iii) grants from Scottish Enterprise in the past three years. [36035]

Mr. Kynoch: In the three years to March 1995, payments of regional selective assistance to overseas-owned companies in Scotland totalled £112.5 million, of which £57.5 million related to projects in Strathclyde. Figures for other grants are not available.

Dr. Godman: That is a tidy sum. With the honourable exception of a tiny handful of recipient companies, such as IBM and National Semiconductor, few of those companies set up research and development facilities. Why does the Scottish Office allow them to avoid such a responsibility? Should it not be a condition of such grants that those incoming companies must create research and development facilities?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman is right. We want to encourage research and development facilities to come to Scotland. On my two most recent trips abroad to promote inward investment as well as exports, we have specifically tried to encourage research and development to come to Scotland. Several organisations may be considering Scotland in the future and we shall continue with our efforts. If we can get research and development, a lot follows on thereafter.

Dr. Reid: Despite the free market rhetoric we are all pleased that the Minister has been following a rather


interventionist course when it comes to encouraging inward investment—presumably that is part of the package of the new user-friendly Scottish Secretary of State. Nevertheless, does he recall that we have unfortunately lost one or two rather large projects in the past? Can he give us an assurance that lessons have been learnt from that and that whenever there is a possibility of attracting substantial inward investment that involves regional selective assistance it is monitored closely?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman is aware that Locate in Scotland as well as the partnerships that exist throughout Scotland between it and local enterprise companies and local authorities demonstrate that attempts to bring inward investment to Scotland are second to none. We work extremely hard to try to succeed in every case, but we are up against increasing competition and sadly one cannot win them all. With particular reference to the hon. Gentleman's area he will be aware that we have been involved in several significant potential inward investment projects, some of which I hope will come to fruition in the not too distant future.

Skye Bridge

Mr. Charles Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on progress towards the completion of the Skye bridge. [36036]

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I am delighted to say that the Skye bridge was opened by my right hon. Friend two days ago and is a great success. The hon. Gentleman chose not to attend the opening so he will be unaware of the many positive representations made by his constituents to my right hon. Friend. Those included representations from the convener of Highland regional council for improvements of the Kyle Prospect in the area of the former ferry marshalling area. I am delighted to announce that we shall make £250,000 available to Highland council to allow it to take forward that highly desirable local scheme at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Kennedy: May I point out to the Minister that the convener of Highland region was the only significant elected representative that he met at the bridge because the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) was not there and nor were any of the Skye and Lochalsh district councillors in their official capacity. The only elected member present was the only person in governance in that part of the country who does not have his electoral base in either Skye or Lochalsh. That speaks for itself.
As for the extra money, would the Minister confirm that it was promised as part of the original package when Highland regional council voted for the bridge? It has taken all these years for it to come forward. As for the funding of the bridge, does the Minister agree that the completion is marked by the fact that the remedial work had begun before the official opening took place? Given that extra money is being expended on repairing the cracks to the bridge and to the infrastructure, will he give us an assurance that that extra expenditure will not be levied on the toll payers for years hence? They will have to pay enough as it is for the unjust imposition of a monopoly upon them.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is ill informed about the cracks, which were largely

cosmetic. Attention has been paid to them. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) may laugh, but if he had dealt with construction he would know that when concrete is poured cracks develop frequently and have to be filled in. That is an absolutely straightforward job and the cracks pose no structural risk whatever.
My right hon. Friend made an award available for investing in people when he visited the bridge two days ago. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that his constituents will benefit enormously from the bridge, which will greatly increase tourism. What is more, those who pay tolls will pay less than they paid for the ferry, so they will benefit. Before long that bridge will be a free one when the costs have been paid off.

Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister agree that the high-toll bridge project is tawdry, aesthetically unattractive, profoundly undemocratic and in every way unacceptable at the price that must be paid for it? In all those circumstances it was entirely appropriate that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should have opened it. Will the Minister try to tell us in one sentence why the people who live in those communities should have inflicted upon them the highest tolls in Europe? Can he also tell us why Ministers who were babbling earlier today about choice have denied the people in those communities the choice of using a ferry rather than a monopoly bridge in order to line the pockets of the funders of the Tory party?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This was a partnership project. The Scottish Office provided about £8 million for the approach roads, which is a very significant figure. The tolls should pay off the costs in about 14 years. We envisage that the economy of the Western Isles and Skye will enormously benefit from a great increase in tourism. Average journey times will be at least 15 minutes less. In the summer peak times, it may save travellers up to an hour. That will make a considerable difference. There will be the economies of scale.
I remind the hon. Gentleman of the great benefits that will accrue to the islands as a result of that decision, which we believe will stand the whole of the north-west of Scotland in very good stead.

Local Government

Mr. Maclennan: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to strengthen the local accountability of local government in the highlands. [36037]

Mr. Kynoch: All new councils are required to prepare decentralisation schemes within the first year of being set up.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister accept that if there is to be an effective decentralisation, in the highlands region especially, bearing in mind its enormous size, there needs to be some budgetary decentralisation to districts as well as administrative management? Does he recognise the immediate need to tackle the problem of consolidation of premises, which is costly if there is to be area management?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Highland council area is very large and I am well


aware of the difficulties and the importance of decentralisation proposals. The council has a year to come up with those, but I know that the new Highland council is keen to have those in place by April 1996 rather than 1997. To that end, the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that this afternoon I have approved a bid from the new Highland council of £275,000 of capital resources for its accommodation needs so that it can provide one stop shop public access information facilities in small towns and villages in Badenoch and Strathspey, Caithness, Inverness, Lochaber, Skye and Lochalsh and Sutherland. By that means, the council should be better placed to have those decentralisation proposals off the ground for April 1996.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: While the Minister is considering accountability of local authorities, will he consider the accountability of central Government in the decision that may yet be made in America to send nuclear fuel elements through Scotland at anything up to—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am very tolerant to new Members who have not been here a long time, but this question refers specifically to local government in the highlands of Scotland. If the hon. Lady can relate a question directly to that, of course I will listen to it.

Ms Cunningham: Perhaps I can rephrase my question. If local authority accountability is to be considered seriously by the Government, would the Minister please advise Highland council and other planning authorities in Scotland, how they can in any way be accountable to their populations for the planning implications of the consistent transport of nuclear fuel elements through Scotland without advance warning to the emergency planning officers? That problem will become even more acute if the American Government take the decision that they might, which will result in one of those shipments per week coming through Scotland for the next 10 years.

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Lady of course is keeping up the honourable tradition—or dishonourable tradition—of her colleagues in trying to scaremonger and trying to deprive people in the highlands of jobs in connection with that product.
Planning matters are a matter for local district councils and they will be for the new unitary authorities. Indeed the whole planning process is under review at present, and I hear the arguments that the hon. Lady has made.

Nursing Homes

Mr. Hood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to tighten up the inspection procedures for nursing homes in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [36038]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Health board general managers are funding a project to produce national standards for the registration and inspection of nursing homes.

Mr. Hood: I am not wholly satisfied by that answer. May I ask the Minister something specifically about Orchard House nursing home in my constituency? In doing so, I remind him of a "Front Line Scotland" television programme that exposed serious problems with the management administration and with the treatment of residents in that home—so much so that Lanarkshire

health board conducted an inquiry. Apparently, it was so terrified by the result of its inquiry that it is now refusing, claiming that it is the result of legal advice, to make that report public.
As the local Member of Parliament, I hope that the Minister agrees that the people have a right to know what happens in nursing homes when they close the door and leave their relatives after visiting time.
Is the Minister also aware that I am reliably informed that the police are interested in investigating some of the happenings in that nursing home at that time? Will he therefore initiate an independent inquiry—independent of the Lanarkshire health board, which is only investigating its own inspection record—and serve the public interest so that people are confident that they can be looked after in nursing homes? We are caring—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have been tolerant enough. The hon. Gentleman's subject might be more suitable for an Adjournment debate. I think that the Minister has got the gist of the hon. Gentleman's question and I am sure that he can give a reply.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, I do have the gist of it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State understands that the Lanarkshire health board has completed its inquiry into the standards of care at Orchard House nursing home and that the necessary follow-up action is now under way. A decision about the report's publication is a matter for the board as the registration authority. I can announce this afternoon that my right hon. Friend has asked the social work services inspectorate to examine community care assessments of older people with complex needs within Lanarkshire, the decisions arising from those assessments and the choices made available. We have made a commitment that users should be able to choose their residential care or nursing home care. We are determined to ensure that that policy of choice is in place.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are many nursing homes and residential homes of the highest quality in Scotland which are very much welcomed by those who reside there? Does he agree that those residents are concerned about the capital limit above which they pay the full fee? Will he have discussions with his right hon. Friends to see whether that limit should be raised in the near future?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, I shall certainly pass on my right hon. Friend's concern to the Chancellor. My right hon. Friend is right to praise many nursing homes throughout the length and breadth of Scotland. National guidelines on nursing home client groups have been issued and we expect boards to comply with them.

Mr. McAllion: Does the Minister agree that there should be tighter inspection of nursing homes, which are increasingly being run by private sector health care companies which give priority to taking profits out of the homes rather than ensuring that the best nursing care is available in the homes? Does he accept that while, for the moment, Ministers can sit there smugly choosing to put public money into the pockets of their pals in the private sector, a day of reckoning is at hand when they and their kind will be swept away in a deluge of votes and a Scottish parliament, elected by the Scottish people, will


set about the task of restoring to robust health a people's health service that is run for the people, not the profiteers who cluster around the Tory party?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am not in favour of profiteering anywhere—

Mr. McAllion: It is happening.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If so, the hon. Gentleman should send in direct evidence and I shall look at it. Under the Nursing Homes Registration (Scotland) Act 1938, health boards in Scotland have a statutory responsibility to visit and inspect all nursing homes in their area at least twice a year. If they do not do carry out that duty, they are in contravention of the Act. They have the power to intervene and close a nursing home if it does not meet the proper standards. It is right that the highest standards should be met—

Mr. McAllion: Public money going into private pockets.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman says public funds—we are providing more than £4,000 million for the national health service in Scotland and it is right that it should be given the highest priority.

Fish Catches

Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total tonnage of fish caught by fishermen in Scotland last year; and what were the comparable totals 10 and 20 years previously. [36039]

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: The total standard landed weight of fish landings into Scotland by UK vessels in 1994 was 459,268 tonnes. In 1984 that stood at 543,312 tonnes, and in 1974 477,210 tonnes.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As Scottish waters are now a European Union resource and future decisions will be made by majority vote, is the Minister confident that he can secure the long-term future of that vital Scottish industry?

Mr. Robertson: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be the first to agree that, unlike him, fish do not respect international boundaries. Therefore, international co-operation is vital to ensure the proper management of fisheries and the long-term conservation of the fish stocks. That is in everyone's best interests and it will not occur without co-operation.
I am the first to concede to my hon. Friend that the common fisheries policy may be far from perfect, but we are reviewing our approach to it and we shall continue to press for improvements. I am delighted that the CFP review group has two Scottish members who are playing a full role in developing thinking at this crucial time.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that the fishermen of Scotland and Northern Ireland share my concern and that of my colleagues and the people from the Clyde coast constituencies about the threat to safety posed by the phosphorus incendiaries that have been washed up in the past 10 days? As the fisheries and environment Minister for Scotland, will he explain what the Secretary of State for Scotland is doing to ensure that there is no recurrence of the incident? Will he join with me and hon. Members from all parties and ask British Gas—we know that its

pipe laying has caused the problem—to suspend its operations immediately until it is clear that there can be no recurrence of that appalling and horrendous danger?

Mr. Robertson: I know that the hon. Gentleman had meetings yesterday with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, which I understand proved constructive. I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, in his role as Scotland's lead fisheries and environment Minister, has been following up those discussions.

Mr. Gallie: Is my hon. Friend aware that the prawn catch in the Clyde estuary is nearing its limit under the total allowable catch? Is he also aware that the volume and the quality of the catch is being maintained at very high levels? On that basis, will he consider extending the TAC for prawns in the Clyde estuary?

Mr. Robertson: I commend my hon. Friend for the way in which he has doggedly pursued the matter with me for some time. As he is aware, I travelled the length and breadth of Scotland during the recess in order to hear what fishermen had to say. The matter is clearly of great concern to fishermen on the west coast and I am pleased to announce to the House today that Her Majesty's Government will press the Commission for an increase of 1,000 tonnes on the 1995 precautionary TAC for nephrops off the west coast of Scotland. I am confident that that will ensure a sustained fishery until the end of the year.

Highlands and Islands

Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on economic prospects for the highlands and islands. [36040]

Mr. Kynoch: The success of the Government's economic policies means that the prospects for continuing growth and long-term economic prosperity in the highlands and islands look very encouraging.

Mr. Macdonald: I return to the question of the Skye bridge. Contrary to the benefits claimed by the Government, everyone in Scotland recognises that the policy of high tolls is creating an economic barrier to progress in Skye and the western isles that is every bit as great as the physical barrier that the bridge is intended to overcome.
I ask the Minister to look specifically at the question of disabled drivers using the bridge. Disabled drivers who display orange badges receive a 100 per cent. exemption from tolls on every other toll bridge in Scotland, but they are having to pay the full whack on the Skye bridge. That is surely completely unjustifiable and an example of what happens when the profit motive is put before the interests of the community.

Mr. Kynoch: I am very disappointed that the hon. Gentleman seeks to try to run down Skye. The Skye bridge is a much better transport link that makes Skye more accessible. As I understand it, the tolls on the Skye bridge are much less than people would pay on the ferries.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to disabled people. Arrangements for the disabled using the Skye bridge are better than arrangements on the ferries and, in fact, disabled drivers are exempt from tolls.

Mr. Dalyell: Who has given the evidence that the cracks are only simply cosmetic?

Mr. Kynoch: I trained as a mechanical not a civil engineer, but even I am aware that, as my hon. Friend explained, when one pours concrete surface cracks may appear. Those surface cracks must then be covered over for cosmetic reasons. As far as I am aware, the hon. Gentleman need have no worries about the structural arrangements for the bridge. They have been looked at thoroughly and everyone is quite confident that the bridge will go from strength to strength and will greatly assist the people of Skye about whom the Government are concerned.

Poll Tax

Mr. Michael J. Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the amount of poll tax still outstanding at today's date. [36041]

Mr. Kynoch: As at 30 June 1995, the total amount of community charge income which remained uncollected in Scotland was £310.8 million.

Mr. Martin: Does the Minister know whether Mr. Dick Douglas cleared his poll tax bill before the Government appointed him, or afterwards? That would be interesting to know as Mr. Douglas sat on the Opposition Benches beside me for three or four years saying that he would not pay it. Now that Mr. Douglas has a nice salary, does the Secretary of State intend that he should pay something towards that salary because he encouraged people not to pay the poll tax?

Mr. Kynoch: What the hon. Gentleman should consider is that of the £310.8 million of community charge outstanding, £208.8 million relates to Strathclyde. That has come about because of the totally reckless campaign by the Scottish Nationalists and the total inefficiency of the Labour-controlled council in collecting the tax. To put the matter in perspective for the people of Strathclyde, that sum of money as a one-off payment would save £280 on a band-D tax bill and represents 37 per cent. of the total council tax revenue. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will try to make sure that the council goes ahead and collects that tax in the interests of the people of Strathclyde.

Mr. Worthington: What about Dick Douglas?

Mr. Kynoch: Mr. Douglas is the chairman of the water customers' council. I am sure that he will look after customers' interests to the best of his ability and I commend my right hon. Friend for making that appointment.

Mr. George Robertson: Mr. Dick Douglas was plucked from obscurity, to which he was consigned by the electors, by the Secretary of State for Scotland. Has he or has he not paid the poll tax or is it another example of the Government's double standards? Perhaps it is revealing that the inventor of the poll tax is not answering questions at this point in the Order Paper today. Let me make the obvious point that there would never have been the poll tax—the only and real tartan tax that the people of Scotland have to pay—if we had a Scottish parliament. It would never have passed that legislation. Will the Minister answer the straight question that has been put to

him? Mr. Douglas is being paid a high salary to head a quango. He was appointed by the man who invented the poll tax. Has Mr. Douglas paid it?

Mr. Kynoch: I really do think that the hon. Gentleman has given a pretty weak performance this afternoon. I hope for his sake that he is successful in the reshuffle within his party today. The one thing that he fails to tell the electorate of Scotland is the taxation that will apply to the people of Scotland should his Scottish parliament come about. He has had questions put to him throughout the summer by the Government and the Conservative party about the income and the revenue for the Scottish parliament. He has failed to answer those questions. Unfortunately, he will cost the Scottish people and that is not in the interests of the Scottish people, the Scottish economy or Scottish business.

Mr. Martin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Due to the unsatisfactory reply from the Minister, perhaps I could raise this matter in an Adjournment debate.

Forestry Review

Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the Forestry Commissioners to discuss the implementation of the forestry review. [36042]

Mr. Kynoch: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discussed the forestry review with the chairman and director general of the Forestry Commission in August. We shall make an announcement about its implementation soon.

Sir Thomas Arnold: What success is my hon. Friend having towards ensuring that there is adequate public access whenever woodland is sold by the Forestry Commissioners?

Mr. Kynoch: Obviously, access is important to the Government and access to woodlands which are sold are of prime concern to the Forestry Commission. Every effort is made to secure access agreements which guarantee access for the public on foot. However, on the woodlands that have been sold so far, there has been a presumption by the Forestry Commission against selling woodlands with a need for high level of access, therefore it has occurred on only several occasions.

Health Issues (Glasgow)

Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet the Greater Glasgow health board to discuss health issues in Glasgow; and if he will make a statement. [36043]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I met Greater Glasgow health board most recently on 3 October to discuss its plans to further improve health care for the people of Glasgow.

Mr. McAvoy: Will the Minister confirm that at that meeting the board put to him the proposal to close Rutherglen maternity hospital? If it did, and if he is now considering the proposal, will he bear in mind that this is one of the safest, most efficient and most modern maternity units in the greater Glasgow health board area?


Does he agree that it would be ludicrous to close such a facility and replace it with another unit costing between £13 million and £15 million?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The health board has not put any plans for Rutherglen maternity hospital to Ministers. I understand that it has carried out a thorough review of the organisation of maternity services, and has

consulted publicly. It stressed the importance of integrating maternity care with the full range of support facilities available in general hospitals.
I am fully aware of the strength of local support, and of the fact that the Government have provided some £612 million for health care for Glasgow's residents this year.

Points of Order

Mr. Llew Smith: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Before the vote on the defence estimates yesterday evening, the Minister of State for Defence Procurement informed the House that I, along with some of my hon. Friends, had withdrawn my name from the amendment. In a point of order later in the evening, I explained that that was not the case. I assumed that an apology would be forthcoming from the Minister, but it has not. Have you, Madam Speaker, been informed that the Minister intends to make a statement, and that part of it will constitute an apology?

Madam Speaker: I have not been informed that a Minister is seeking to make a statement on that matter, but I have before me the exchanges that took place on the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I believe that at that time my Deputy Speaker dealt with the matter in the right manner, and that no further point of order arises on the issue.

Mr. John Butcher: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on whether, and in what circumstances, parliamentary privilege should be used to overturn or ignore a legal requirement of the European Court of Justice.
You will be aware, Madam Speaker, that yesterday the European Court of Justice said that it was illegal for women to be appointed to organisations on a quota basis, and that those organisations are therefore questionable. One such organisation exists in the House: I refer, of course, to the shadow Cabinet. Someone who is salaried by the House—the shadow Chief Whip—is appointed from what, allegedly, is now an illegally constituted body. Would you entertain any application from Opposition Members to use parliamentary privilege to overturn that legal requirement, and what would that do constitutionally to our relationship with the European Court of Justice?

Madam Speaker: I am not prepared to give a ruling on the matter at present, but now that the hon. Gentleman has made the point to me I shall certainly look at it and give him a carefully considered response.

Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Question Time, a gentleman by the name of Mr. Dick Douglas—whom we all know—was mentioned. Is it not a matter of fact that, when the legislation went through the House, it made it the local authority's responsibility to deal with individuals?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. Of course it was the local authority's responsibility to see that the tax was collected from each individual.

Mr. Roger Berry: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Several hundred disabled people and

carers are currently holding a meeting in Westminster Hall because the booking of the Grand Committee Room, which was made in advance, has been superseded. Those people have been forced to hold their meeting in Westminster Hall without the advantage of a public address system. Will you please look into the matter, Madam Speaker? On a number of occasions, people have come here and have been forced to attend meetings in which they cannot hear what people are saying. Surely we should welcome disabled people and carers to the House, rather than making them feel unwelcome.

Madam Speaker: The Committee considering the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill is sitting in the Committee Room in question; it takes precedence over any lobbying of the House. This morning I carefully went into the circumstances of the lobby to which the hon. Gentleman refers, which is greatly welcome here. I understand that about 300 disabled people and carers have come here. The best possible facilities have been provided for them in Westminster Hall, where there is a loudspeaker to let Members know where their constituents are. Everything possible is being done by the Serjeant at Arms Department to see that these people are made comfortable and welcome and that hon. Members know where their constituents are.

Mr. Berry: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Harry Greenway: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: No, he cannot pursue the point of order—I have already answered the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Greenway: On another point of order, Madam Speaker. I have been to Westminster Hall to try to find constituents of mine who have sent me green cards and who are there, and I must respectfully tell you that no loudspeaker system is in operation. It was extremely difficult to find people, although I did manage to find one or two of them. Whatever system is in place is not working as it should be, so the people who have come here are not being seen as they are entitled to be.

Madam Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman. At 12 o'clock today I was assured that the loudspeaker system was working, so perhaps the Serjeant at Arms will take care of the matter without further delay.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

VALUE ADDED TAX

That the Value Added Tax (Tour Operators) (Amendment) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1495) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Bates.]

Question agreed to.

Pet Animal Welfare

Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to control the sale of animals in pet shops and the breeding of dogs; and for connected purposes.
My Bill aims to end puppy farming, to control the sale of animals to young people, to ban the importing of exotic pets and to modify the quarantine system in this country. I realise at this late stage of the parliamentary year that my chances of legislative success are even less than my chances of entering the kingdom of heaven—or indeed the shadow Cabinet, although I am assured by my more ambitious colleagues that the two are one and the same place.
It is not my intention to stop people enjoying the company of animals and pets; rather I intend to promote the welfare of animals through effective regulation of the pet trade.
I shall deal first with the scandal of puppy farming, and begin by paying a warm tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) for his tireless efforts to stamp it out.
The trade began in earnest in 1984. Amazingly, it seems that the Agricultural Development Advisory Service suggested at that time that farmers struggling because of EC milk quotas should go into puppy farming. More recently, public awareness of this vile practice has been heightened following campaigns by organisations such as the National Canine Defence League, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Puppy Watch and the News of the World. That paper may occasionally catch out some politico doing naughty things but it sure knows how to run an effective animal welfare campaign. Any newspaper that concentrates on the sex lives of Members of Parliament and the cruel mistreatment of animals will never run out of copy.
Remarkably, there are probably about 1,000 puppy farms in west Wales alone, but the trade thrives across Britain, with an estimated 200,000 dogs being produced each year from puppy farms. Owing to a loophole in the law, anyone can set up a puppy farm, although the 1992 legislation now allows local authorities and the RSPCA to inspect premises.
I should like to outline the main areas of concern in respect of these farms. They involve indiscriminate and unprincipled breeding, with bitches often kept in appalling conditions. They are bred twice a year, to exhaustion, typically over an eight-year period, and then disposed of—all for profit, not the betterment of the breed.
This disgusting process also involves puppies being removed from their mothers soon after birth and transported hundreds of miles before being purchased by unsuspecting people wanting a pet. Some of the vile people involved in the trade are now exporting to the far east in the certain knowledge, I believe, that some of the dogs will end up in a pot or on a plate. We have the nerve to describe ourselves as a country of animal lovers, yet we do nothing about these dog factories, despite extensive public opposition.
A survey earlier this month carried out on behalf of the National Canine Defence League revealed that 95 per cent. of vets are against the mass breeding of puppies on

puppy farms; 84 per cent. believe that their clients are unlikely to know whether their puppies have been mass-bred; 63 per cent. of these same vets felt that hereditary disorders are more likely with this process; and 76 per cent. felt that not seeing the puppies' mothers made it more difficult to judge the likelihood of their developing physical or mental disorders.
Finally, a massive 91 per cent. believe that the lack of socialisation causes more problems as animals grow older. Perhaps that has been the reason for many, if not all, of the cases in which a seemingly docile family pet suddenly becomes an aggressive creature capable of savaging or killing members of the family. The first thing that any potential puppy owner should insist on is seeing the mother. If the breeder or pet shop cannot or will not do that, the advice must be to refuse to purchase.
It is the intention of my Bill to secure the better enforcement by local authorities of existing legislation, in particular the Breeding of Dogs Acts 1973 and 1991. I also wish to secure much tighter legislation on licensing and animal welfare, since, in breeding, the interests of the dog must come first. It is essential that puppies stay with their mothers for at least eight weeks and have social contact with humans before joining a family. It would also greatly assist the welfare of what we describe as our best friend if one Government Department rather than a whole clutch of them were designated responsible for all aspects relating to dogs.
Although I have reservations, I still believe that it is good for a child to be brought up with a pet. Social contact with a suitable pet can teach affection, knowledge and respect for animals at an early age, and with more of that we might be able to avoid much of the brutality that so many perverted individuals inflict on animals.
To encourage responsible pet ownership, my Bill would make it illegal to sell an animal to any person under 16. At present, the law allows the sale to any child of 12 or more. There is already widespread support for such a change, from the public, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Members of Parliament on both sides of the House, and the Pet Trade and Industry Association. Its adoption into law would also put the country into line with the European convention on the protection of pet animals. I would warn Conservative Members that, in the Government's rush to deregulate, they should not further weaken the already inadequate controls over the sale of animals through pet shops.
Keeping an animal for a pet, should involve great commitment. A pet should never be reduced to the indignity of being a mere present to please a child at Christmas or a birthday. Nor should a pet be an exotic creature captured in the wild for our pleasure. Anyone who keeps a fashionably exotic animal, such as a snake, alligator, pot-bellied pig, monkey or parrot, either knows a lot about them or is a fool. Regrettably, we know that a significant number of fools think that they know how to keep an exotic pet, and the result is so often tragic for the animal.
In my opinion, there is little if any justification for keeping such animals, and we should impose either a ban or much tougher and enforced regulation. There is overwhelming evidence that well over 50 per cent. of wild birds exported from third-world countries die between capture and final destination. This is not trade; it is mass slaughter, and it must be stopped. European Union countries have banned the export of their own native wild


bird species, yet the Union remains the world's largest importer of birds. Ideally, we should stop the trade altogether. I pay credit to airlines such as British Airways, Lufthansa, Virgin, KLM and others that are refusing to transport wild birds. Those airlines are setting an example to European Governments, who must now respond by refusing to grant import licences.
I would wish my Bill to contain changes to the archaic British quarantine system, along the lines of the recommendations from our own Agriculture Select Committee. We should replace the quarantine system with a modern one based on vaccinations, antibody testing and approved identification. The present system, in my opinion, merely succeeds in parting responsible owners from their pets and condemning many pets to a miserable life and death in quarantine. Our present quarantine system seems more voodoo than veterinary and it should be changed forthwith.
For all those connected reasons concerning the welfare of pets, I beg leave to be allowed to introduce my Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Madam Speaker: Who will prepare and bring in the Bill?]

Mr. Banks: The usual list of suspects, Madam Speaker.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Alan Williams, Mr. Elliot Morley, Mr. Ron Davies, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Simon Hughes, Miss Kate Hoey, Ms Diane Abbott, Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Chris Mullin and Mr. Tony Benn.

PET ANIMAL WELFARE

Mr. Tony Banks accordingly presented a Bill to control the sale of animals in pet shops and the breeding of dogs; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 172.]

Opposition Day

[18TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Rail Privatisation

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
That this House, bearing in mind that both the sale of the train franchises and the flotation of Railtrack are falling further and further behind schedule because of investor disinterest or distrust, and noting that the run-up to privatisation has revealed a lamentable decline in safety standards, an unprecedented collapse of investment and almost universal opposition from the travelling public, calls upon the Government to abandon this sell-off and switch expenditure from promoting the dogma of privatisation to improving a vital public service based on renewal of rolling-stock, upgrading of lines and higher standards for passengers.
I congratulate the Secretary of State for Transport, the new holder of the post. I hope that he enjoys his time in office for the brief tenure that is all that awaits him.
At the risk of intruding into private grief, I also wish the right hon. Gentleman well in his search for a new seat at Maidenhead, where, I understand, his deputy, the Minister for Railways and Roads, is the other main contender. I do not wish to spoil his chances by announcing that I am backing him. As, however, this is the first time in the current chicken run that two Ministers in the same Department have scurried for the same seat, all that I say is, "May the best chicken win!"
On 24 November last year, the previous Secretary of State for Transport announced that the Government intended to privatise Railtrack by April 1996—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is a little premature in view of what is coming. Almost a year later, so far has the proposed privatisation fallen into public disrepute and commercial suspicion that the present Secretary of State was obliged to reannounce it a week ago to the Tory party conference. This time, there were two important differences. First, he was forced to admit that the Government could not meet their target for the sale of 1 April next and that the aim now was for it to be some time in spring. As every single target in this whole sorry saga has been missed, normally by a wide margin, we can take that promise with a pinch of salt.
Secondly, the Secretary of State had to admit that the sale would comprise
at least 51 per cent. of the assets.
That is a major climbdown. Hitherto, there had never been any doubt that the figure would be 100 per cent. Indeed, on 15 November last year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer wrote to the Prime Minister in one of those leaked letters saying that the privatisation of Railtrack was
integral to the Budget arithmetic.
In other words, given that the whole aim of the exercise is to raise funds for tax cuts, it is clearly a humiliating admission that the Government may now be able to sell only half. It is the most obvious sign yet that the Government are in deep trouble over this privatisation, both with investors and with the travelling public.
It is scarcely surprising. Who in their right mind would want to buy into an industry that, uniquely and unlike any previous privatisation, will always be dependent on a high level of Government subsidy—£2 billion this year—which no Government, Tory or Labour, can automatically guarantee for ever? Who in their right mind would want to buy a piece of an industry split up into 94 separate parts, all independent and competing against each other, where the profitability of each part is unpredictably dependent on the condition and performance of all the other parts?
Who would want to buy into a train company when the revenue and profits will be squeezed by the fares cut which the Government have imposed, while the fixed costs are continually being forced up by Railtrack's ever-rising track access charges and when they know—I make this clear—that a Labour Government will not allow them to go for a quick profit by lowering any further the already too low passenger service requirements fixed by the franchise director?
Who would want to buy into Railtrack when 80 per cent, of its revenue comes from track access charges, and there can be no certainty about their future level? Current charges are based on valuing Railtrack at about £8 billion, under an accounting system known as modern equivalent assets valuation. However, if Railtrack is sold at a fraction of that value that must significantly reduce the track access charges that would be permitted by the regulator.
In the light of all that, it is hardly surprising that, when Sir Bob Reid, the former chairman of British Rail, and therefore someone who knows more about the subject than most, was asked about Railtrack's investment prospects, he said that he would rather put his money into a butcher's shop.
That also helps to explain why, despite all the huffing and puffing about privatisation that has gone on for a year, the Government have managed to sell only one quarry in Devon, an electronics firm, four British Rail maintenance workshops, two smaller workshops and two depots, together with the train charters to run services for special events. That is all they have achieved after a whole year of seeking to privatise the railways.
Far from meeting the timetable by selling half the network by 1 April 1996, the Government may now fail to have sold even one passenger franchise, and they will certainly not have sold more than a tiny handful by that date. The Secretary of State, carried along on a high of pre-privatisation complacency, appears not even to understand his own target. On 10 September he said:
This month, 51 per cent. [of the franchises] will have had their service requirements defined. At the end of the year, about 51 per cent. of the franchises will be out to tender".
The right hon. Gentleman was not even right about that. By the end of last month only seven of the 25 franchises have had their service levels defined. But that is not the point. The real point, which the right hon. Gentleman seems unable or unwilling to grasp, is the fact that the Government's commitment was to sell 51 per cent. by turnover of the franchises by 1 April 1996. On that score they have comprehensively and ignominiously failed.
Far from going away, the problems are multiplying. We know from leaks—I am glad to say that so hated is rail privatisation that we have had plenty of those over the summer—that plans for Railtrack to produce new

computer software for the May 1996 timetable, by which time it is supposed to be operating as a private company, are in a state of collapse.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman said that he was glad that there had been plenty of leaks. Are we to take that as an official statement from the Opposition Front Bench? Do Front-Bench spokesmen wish to encourage the release of confidential information? Is that the attitude of new Labour?

Mr. Meacher: I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety on that score. Of course I am not encouraging leaks; I am simply a recipient of them, but they have been most revealing and I have no doubt—

The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): rose—

Mr. Meacher: The right hon. Gentleman should let me finish answering his hon. Friend.
I have no doubt that, until the Government give up their madcap privatisation, leaks will continue to flow.

Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman told the House that he did not encourage leaks. Is he aware that, in an article that he wrote for Railway Magazine, he said:
leaked documents are particularly welcome. I promise to make good use of them.

Mr. Meacher: Absolutely. Leaked documents are particularly welcome; I am not encouraging them, but if I—[Interruption.]

Mr. Hawkins: New Labour.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Since one of the terms of service for anybody now working in this highly responsible new organisation is that they must not disclose information of any kind—even that which clearly is in the public interest—is it not absolutely essential if passengers are to be safeguarded that railwaymen and women, far from being treated in a contemptible way and told that they are not trusted, tell the truth? Should they not have the right to pass on such information to the public?

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. The situation in the rail industry is exactly the same as that which is operated in the health service—employees who know that the interests of the public are being undermined or put at risk are forbidden to make that information known. That shows how ashamed the Government are of what is going on in the services for which they are responsible. It is an act of public duty for those people who know facts which are in the public interest to ensure that those facts are made known. There are so many of examples of that that the Opposition do not have to ask for them.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that the road to socialism is strewn with photocopies and brown envelopes?

Mr. Meacher: I certainly think that the road to retaining the rail industry within the public sector is strewn with a mountain of leaks. Those leaks indicate—and public polls confirm—that 88 per cent. of the population are deeply opposed to this privatisation. That


number must include half the Tory party and, of course, many employees who know better than anyone what is going on.
I was talking about the computer software and the problems that the Government are having before I was temporarily interrupted. I received a letter from a senior Railtrack employee, dated 26 September, which stated:
The present crisis is because the next May (1996) timetable needs to be on our systems within the next couple of months, but there is no chance of this happening. The next system simply will not be ready, if indeed it will ever be ready.
Of course Railtrack decided they needed to have all sorts of fancy line and time charging systems on the new software, things that were naturally totally unnecessary on the unified BR software, but that is a natural consequence of Rail Fragmentation.
If Railtrack were passed back to the BR board, all these problems would just disappear, and an awful lot of taxpayers money would instantly be saved as a result.
What a pity that the Secretary of State cannot rise above the dogmatism of his predecessor and, for once, show a bit of common sense.
Even that is not the end of the timetable farce. Railtrack produced a 2,100-page timetable for the current year which was so pitted with errors and misprints that two supplements of 300 pages of corrections were required. Even that was not enough, as I understand that trains were still apparently scheduled to collide on the route from Waterloo to Exeter. Railtrack decided to recall and pulp 100,000 existing timetables, which retailed at £7.50 each, and print another 100,000. But I understand from industry sources that further misprints and errors are likely, so we can expect more supplements. At this rate we will soon have more rewritten timetables than John Major relaunches—with, I must say, about the same degree of success.
It is not just the industry and investors who are bemused and bewildered. The travelling public are equally bilious. In his speech last week to the Tory party conference, the Secretary of State said that, no matter who ran the railway, there would be "no compromise on safety". Does he have the faintest idea what has been going on? I must pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) for his remarkable series of revelations during the summer.
Mr. Jack Rose—Railtrack's senior manager responsible for safety—warned two months ago that Railtrack needed 18 months if it was to manage safety effectively, yet the Secretary of State continues to insist on concluding privatisation within the next six months—a year before those systems can be in place.
Then there was the botched £2.5 million resignalling project on the Glasgow to Perth line, which led to signals showing green on 10 separate occasions when they should have been showing red, revealing that the lessons of Clapham, when 35 people were killed, had still not been learnt. It also revealed the dishonesty of Railtrack, which initially lied that passenger trains were not involved.
Now the safety and standards directorate within Railtrack is being sold off. The body responsible for safety policy throughout the network is being made subject to the commercial pressures of the private market.
We have a leaked report—one of the many that we have received—of internal Department of Transport correspondence, which shows the ultimate cynicism about investment in new and safer trains. I shall again quote that correspondence word for word. It states:
Statistics show that the actual number of accidents occurring is small. This has been tolerable to customers and users of the railways so that the promise of better trains in the future has been an acceptable situation, and there is not generally a demand for the immediate renewal of older vehicles simply because they are less crashworthy than new vehicles.
If all that is what the Secretary of State means by no compromise on safety then God help our railways and the travelling public if the Conservatives win a fifth term.
Nor is this merely a matter of safety. Every other promise the Tories made about a privatised railway has gone sour. They said that it would produce a better service for passengers. The Secretary of State said that again this morning. In fact, the passenger service requirements have been consistently fixed at 15 to 20 per cent. below current timetable provisions. They said that it would be less costly for the taxpayer. In fact, the Tory-dominated Select Committee on Transport said a few months ago that it would cost £700 million more to run a private rather than a public railway.
The Tories said that privatisation would reduce bureaucracy. In fact, the increase in bureaucracy will be stifling. According to Railtrack' s legal advisers, for every station used by more than one of the 25 train companies, there will have to be a 42-page lease and a 196-page station access conditions document plus, for every user, a 26-page collateral contract and a 31-page station access agreement. All the documents have to be customised and there are 2,500 stations. Indeed, the hideous complexities of this crackpot privatisation structure are mainly responsible for the continually missed deadlines and abandoned targets.
The previous Secretary of State, in his statement on Railtrack last year, said that privatisation would allow for
delivering efficient track maintenance and encouraging investment in the upgrading of railway lines. It will provide even greater scope for private capital to be injected into better facilities."—[Official Report, 24 November 1994; Vol.250, c. 729.]
What exactly happened? Since privatisation was announced in 1992, investment in the network has halved in real terms. Track maintenance has been cut so that, according to the Department's written answer on 17 July in column 887 of Hansard, on one line alone—the Paddington to Plymouth line—no fewer than 16 speed restrictions are in force because of the condition of the track. According to the excellent Select Committee on Transport report of 5 July, about 195 miles of track are now subject to speed restrictions.
What about the previous Secretary of State's statement about the greater scope for private capital to be injected into better facilities? In fact, privatisation has generated the biggest dearth of investment in the history of the industry. Last year, for the first time since the war, there was not a single order for new rolling stock. There have been no orders this year and next year already seems certain to be the same.
The right hon. Gentleman said in his speech last week:
My job is to show, before the next election, that our vision is the right one"—
he has certainly got a hard job—
for passengers … for those who work on the railways.


Perhaps he could make a start on his task by trying to persuade the workers at ABB at York, the most efficient skilled carriage builders in Europe, that his vision is the right one when it is the Government-induced investment blight arising from privatisation that has just destroyed the 750 of their jobs.
The right hon. Gentleman—he will be relieved to know that this will be my last quotation from his speech, which is a mine of information—also said:
Privatisation is happening; and will bring better services to passengers.
Before hon. Members cheer, I would like to know where on earth the Secretary of State thinks he has been. Does he not know that private train operators will not have to meet minimum standards for rolling stock, including the provision of on-board lavatories, space for storing bicycles and proper facilities for wheelchair users; that minimum station standards, including security and cleanliness, will be relaxed by the franchising director where stations are repeatedly vandalised if he thinks that it would not be cost-effective for train operators to keep to those standards; and that train operators will be free to cut staffing on trains down to a minimum safety level which will mean fewer guards and staff?
Does not the Secretary of State know that train operators will not even have to publish timetables for all passenger trains stopping at particular stations where more than one operator runs those services? Despite all the hoo-hah that the previous Secretary of State made about ending overcrowding on commuter routes, does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that train operators on commuter routes will be allowed to increase passenger loading and standing during the rush hour after privatisation because all but five routes are now below the maximum level of excess capacity that he is permitting?
If the right hon. Gentleman really wants to find out what the ethos of privatisation means for passengers, he need look no further than at what happened only last week on the Torquay line for an elementary lesson in privatisation economics. He will learn that while there was a time when people used the trains to travel to their destinations, in the run-up to privatisation, as the pricing manager for South Wales and West Railways has been frank enough to admit, trains are now run to satisfy
value for money aspirations of its customers.
If, to use the pricing manager's phrase, exceptional loadings—which means if there is a high demand for a train service—occur, then, rather than put on more coaches, season ticket fares are increased by no less than 56 per cent. to suppress the demand. That is privatisation economics: do not accept people simply because they want to use train to travel; bung up prices to maximise revenues and profits and turn away half those who want to use the services if they cannot pay.
Not a single specific argument for rail privatisation stands up to scrutiny. The only defence to which the right hon. Gentleman can resort, as he did last week and again this morning—unfortunately too late in our interview for me to reply, so I will do so now—is that other privatisations such as British Airways, British Telecom and the British Airports Authority have, he says, been a success. He therefore claims that this privatisation will succeed, too.
Quite apart from the fact that most people would not regard the privatisation of water and the utilities as a howling success, let me ask the right hon. Gentleman one

straight question: does he really believe that a privatised British Airways or British Telecom would have been a success if they had been split up into 94 separate, independent parts all competing against each other?

Sir George Young: If the hon. Gentleman knew how British Airways worked, he would understand that it sub-contracts a large part of its work. It does not own its aircraft but leases most of them. It sub-contracts baggage handling and buying in meals. It is a decentralised and disaggregated business, much as British Rail will be.

Mr. Meacher: The Secretary of State cannot get away with that. He misrepresents the position. In the case of the privatisation of British Rail, no single command centre within the organisation is proposed. Every piece will be independent and separate, and must negotiate and commercially compete against every other section. The right hon. Gentleman must take that point on board. It is a crackpot structure, which is the basic reason why it cannot succeed.
Let me make it clear that Labour wants not merely a publicly owned railway but a much better railway. We want a rail renaissance in this country. Our objective is a high-speed rail link, not merely from the Channel tunnel to London—under this Government that is 10 years too late—but up through the heart of Britain to the north of England and Scotland, with high-speed connections to the east and west of England and to Wales. Our objective is to transfer freight from road to rail by creating a piggy-back freight network with freight terminals in all major urban and industrial areas. We shall develop a national public transport information network integrating rail and light rail with bus services wherever feasible.
At the heart of our policy is the integrated transport strategy that this nation now desperately needs. Such a strategy is incompatible with the privatisation and break-up of our railways. The sooner this absurd privatisation is swept away into the dustbin of history, the better for our nation.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
`believes that privatisation of the railways will bring better services to passengers, as has happened with previous privatisations, such as British Airways and British Airports Authority; contrasts this with the Opposition's commitment to renationalise the railways; welcomes the announcement that Railtrack will be floated next Spring, allowing access to private capital and opportunities for investors; and further welcomes the progress that has already been made on privatisation, which will lead to a new era for passengers, with fares and services protected for the first time.'.
First, I thank the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) for his good wishes at the inception of his speech. May I reciprocate by saying how much Conservative Members wish him good fortune in the shadow Cabinet elections?
I welcome the opportunity to have another debate on railway privatisation. First, I should like to say a word or two about the dilemma for the Opposition, not just in opposing a policy that is under way but also when their own policy is changing. Then I shall bring the House up to date on the progress that has been made with privatisation since we last debated it in July, after which I shall deal with some of the hon. Gentleman's criticisms,


particularly on safety and the position in the south-west. Finally, I shall explain how our policies will bring about the revival of the railways, which I am sure the whole House wants to see.
Listening to the hon. Gentleman speak, who would have thought that since 1964, under Labour, 655 stations were closed whereas, under the Conservatives, 244 stations have been opened? So I shall take no lectures from the Opposition on running a decent railway.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Sir George Young: May I get a little further away from the terminus before I grind to a halt at the first signal?
Earlier this month, there was a humiliating U-turn on railways at a seaside conference. That was in Brighton at the Labour party conference, where the Leader of the Opposition caved in to the trade unions and promised to renationalise the railways—a commitment carefully avoided for two years but now entered into not just at some unspecified date in the future but as soon as possible.
The reasons for that change of heart remain obscure. I must tell the brothers below the Gangway that, although they accepted the resolution at the party conference, the motion before the House contains no such mention of a publicly owned railway. Why is it that, having made that commitment and reconfirmed it, the Opposition make no mention whatever of it in the motion?

Dr. Robert Spink: Perhaps the reason for the reversal of Opposition policy would be less obscure if my right hon. Friend had a glance at the Register of Members' Interests and saw how many of the Opposition are sponsored by railway unions.

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend will have noticed that no answers were given to the questions we have consistently asked: what are they going to buy back, and how will they pay for that? The hon. Member for Oldham, West made not a single mention of how the Labour party would fund the policy that he has recently embraced.
No sooner had the leader of the Labour party declared his new policy, and had it repeated by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, than he was backing off from it as fast as possible on the "Today" programme the very next day. No sooner was the Opposition's timetable published than they had to rush out a supplement. The transcript of the "Today" programme shows that it is clear that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) refused to answer the question of how Labour would pay for renationalisation. The question was again ducked this morning by the hon. Member for Oldham, West when Sue MacGregor asked it. He was totally unable to answer it.
I put the same question to the hon. Member again. How will the Opposition pay for renationalisation? Is the answer to be higher fares, or is it to be higher taxes or higher borrowing? What exactly is it that they propose to renationalise? Is it Railtrack? Is it the rolling stock companies'? Is it the franchised companies? It is odd that, having given that commitment, there is nothing about it in the Opposition motion.
The story gets more confusing because, on 26 September, on the Channel 4 news, the hon. Member for Oldham, West said:
there can be no guarantee that the level of public subsidy will continue indefinitely into the future.
Having listened to the hon. Member restate his commitment to publicly funded railways, I find it odd that at the same time the Opposition are refusing to commit themselves to continuing public subsidy for the railways. What kind of message does that send to passengers? No wonder a recent headline in The Guardian read, "Meacher in trouble over rail privatisation pledge".

Mr. Henry McLeish: This is a repeat.

Sir George Young: I made a very good speech at Blackpool and it deserves a further audience. The hon. Member for Oldham, West omitted to read out some sections of it.
During the summer, we saw the other traditional Labour tactic—the scare story. The Opposition are now so desperate to frighten passengers off the railways that the hon. Member for Oldham, West is soliciting leaked documents. As he said in an article for Railway Magazine:
leaked documents are particularly welcome. I promise to make good use of them.
Those Opposition Members who hope at some point to be Ministers may well come to regret the day that that statement was made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West.
In response to the scare stories on safety, I would like to draw attention to the independent Health and Safety Commission, which reported on 23 August:
there is no evidence of any overall decline in health and safety standards".
Even the trade unions are beginning to lose patience with the hon. Member for Oldham, West. A representative of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers said in a BBC Bristol interview on 14 September that the hon. Gentleman's claims in that particular case were nonsense.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Before we leave the question of safety, may we consider the Forth rail bridge and Mr. John Rimington's various examinations? I do not expect an answer from the Secretary of State off the top of his head, but may I ask the Department of Transport in all seriousness to give a full statement of its assessment of the safety involved in what is the greatest engineering monument to the 19th century?

Sir George Young: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman, but I think that I am right to say that we have asked the HSE to do a survey of the Forth bridge and to let us have its findings by the end of the year. I believe that to be the case, but I shall confirm it in writing.
After the incident that I have just described, we then had the spectacle of the hon. Member for Oldham, West attacking the Government in a press release on 26 September for helping railway employees to make bids for the various rail companies that we are privatising. Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that he does not want the people who run the services at the moment to have a stake in their future?
What about the management and the employees who recently bought the former British Rail sandwich operations for £11.5 million? Is he really saying that Labour wants to spend £11.5 million buying that company back from its employees rather than conceding that his policy on renationalisation is old-fashioned and out of date?

Mr. Richard Tracey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the Labour party were to go ahead with proposals such as those made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), they would undoubtedly be vetoed by the shadow Chancellor, who would say that there was not enough money to carry them out?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend's point gives rise to an interesting question. Why is it that the shadow Chancellor has not allowed a motion to be tabled in the name of the Opposition, reaffirming the commitment carried without any contradiction at the Labour party conference only 14 days ago? I wonder whether there is a split in the shadow Cabinet.
We have heard scare stories about fare increases. I remind the House that fares increased by more than 22 per cent. in real terms in four years under Labour. Under the present Government, key fares will be frozen to the retail prices index for the first three years from January 1996, and then fall below that for a further four years.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West repeated that Railtrack's access charges will increase. He must know that that is not the case. The rail regulator has said that, on average, access charges will be 8 per cent. less in real terms this year than they were in 1994–95 and should then fall below the RPI for the next five years. They will go down, not up.
The Opposition claim that train operators will be able to make cuts in services for profits. According to the legislation, that will not be possible, as service levels, for the first time ever, are specified by the franchising director in the passenger service requirements for each company.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will the Minister give way?

Sir George Young: I shall give way once more, but then try to make progress.

Mr. Mackinlay: If a franchiser rats on his obligations, will the Secretary of State ensure that the franchise is terminated? In our opinion, the arithmetic does not add up. One cannot prevent fares from increasing and at the same time maintain services under that scheme. I want an undertaking from the Secretary of State that if there is any failure—any reneging on the franchise—that part of the service will be brought back into the public sector immediately.

Sir George Young: It would revert to the franchising director, to the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising. If the person with the franchise for that seven years reneged on his obligations, the franchising director would have to re-let the franchise.
All Labour says is that it will campaign to prevent privatisation, but that campaign has already failed. Privatisation is happening and, month by month, businesses are being put into the private sector. Already, more than £4 billion by turnover of the old British Rail is

on the market. The momentum will continue well into next year, with the flotation of Railtrack and the start of the new franchised train services. No wonder the Sunday Times reported this week:
the privatisation war is being won.
Our policies are clear and succeeding; Labour's policies arc muddled and failing.
I shall now describe the progress that we have made since we last debated the subject, in July. As the House knows, there will be 25 geographically based franchises for the existing train operating units. We have made substantial progress. Invitations to tender for seven franchises—41 per cent. of the total by turnover—have been issued. I expect that figure to increase to 51 per cent. by about the turn of the year, when the next two invitations to tender are issued. Those are serious bids from serious bidders. Final negotiations with the shortlisted bidders for the first batch—three franchises—are under way. I look forward to announcing the results shortly. The passenger service requirements for a further three franchises have been published, so now more than 55 per cent. of services are being, or have been subject to, consultation.
The franchising director and his staff are working to put further franchises out to tender in a responsible, responsive way as part of a rolling programme. We want a flourishing rail freight industry in the private sector. British Rail's freight customers are enthusiastic supporters of privatisation. They know that competition should give them a better choice of better services. I share that enthusiasm.
We have already offered freight businesses for sale with a turnover of £750 million. The loss-making Red Star has been sold. We have indicative bids for the three Trainload Freight businesses. We have final bids for Rail Express Systems. I expect bids for Freightliner early next year.
Another cornerstone of privatisation is the sale of the three passenger rolling stock companies. Rolling stock leasing will leave train operators free to concentrate on their main business: planning, operating services and looking after the customers. All three ROSCOs, with a turnover in excess of £750 million, are being sold. Final bids for the companies were received last month and I am confident they too will be in private hands before the turn of the year.
We have sold the six British Rail heavy maintenance depots, seven design offices and the on-board catering operation. For the depots, more than 70 organisations expressed interest. There were competitive bids from engineering companies, train builders, and management buy-out teams. All were sold as going concerns. That gives the lie to the Opposition's claim that privatisation cannot succeed.
I want to record that we are pleased to see, not just here with the maintenance depots but in all sectors of privatisation, strong bids by management-employee teams. It is clear from the way that those bidders are reacting to the new opportunities that they see privatisation as the best way to escape from the confines of a structure that has crushed their imagination and sapped their energy.
To complete my progress report, I announced last week that the Railtrack stock market flotation will take place next spring; it will put control of railway infrastructure


firmly where it belongs—in the private sector—and will bring the total turnover of all the railway businesses on the market to more than £6.5 billion. I congratulate all those who have worked hard to achieve that progress. Clearly, Labour's campaign to prevent privatisation is not working.
Let me now deal with some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, including the fare increase in south Devon which he mentioned. That fare increase came into effect in May under the traditional publicly owned and publicly accountable regime. It is exactly the sort of approach that rail privatisation is designed to stamp out. Once the services involved are franchised, there will be a private sector operator who will be more responsive to passengers.
As I said last week, I am concerned about this case. For the present I have asked British Rail to look urgently into the decisions that have been taken. But for the future, under the new fares regime, that sort of price rise simply could not happen. The franchising director has announced that for three years from January 1996 operators will not be able to increase key fares overall above inflation. After that, fares will be capped at an average of RPI minus 1 per cent. for each of the following years. In this particular case, the weekly season ticket would be protected as well as saver fares. More generally, the franchising director will take into account local needs when he publishes for consultation his draft passenger service requirement.
Every privatisation has had its share of scare stories: for example, the privatisation of British Telecom and the pay phones which, it was said, would close, and the fuel price rises that have never happened. It is therefore hardly surprising that the safety issue has emerged for the railways—it is an issue that I take seriously. There is no reason to expect privatisation of an industry to destroy management's concern for the safety of its customers, its staff or the population at large. There is no evidence to suggest that privatisation of British Airways or the British Airports Authority has reduced safety standards in the aviation industry. There is no evidence to suggest that separation of responsibility between those organisations and others does not work effectively, reliably and safely.
Safety remains of paramount importance in the railway industry and the key factor should be that it is overseen independently. We have implemented in full the Health and Safety Commission's recommendations for an enhanced safety regime for the restructured industry. The Health and Safety Executive has a continuing responsibility in law for the regulation of the industry's safety.
As I have said, the Health and Safety Commission confirmed there is no evidence of any overall decline in standards. In fact, during Railtrack's first year of operation there were major improvements in seven of the eight main indicators measuring injury levels, which were 18' per cent. better, and the passenger train collision/derailment figures were 31 per cent. better.
We are not complacent about safety; Railtrack is not complacent, nor are the train operating companies, nor are the thousands of people who work in the industry.

Mr. Bayley: In the Hidden report on the Clapham rail crash, Sir Anthony Hidden recommended that
British Rail shall ensure that the organisational framework exists to prevent commercial considerations of a business-led railway from compromising safety.
I believe that that responsibility has passed from British Rail to Railtrack. How does the Secretary of State square the fact that Railtrack will be able to exclude commercial considerations when it is a commercial company in a private sector?

Sir George Young: Its safety regime must be validated and scrutinised regularly by the Health and Safety Commission. That regime has been established in the full knowledge that the various components were about to be privatised. We are not complacent about safety. The HSE will continue its independent monitoring and investigation to ensure that standards are maintained and commitments are met.
We remain firmly committed to the modernisation of the west coast main line and I am pleased that it is progressing well. The west coast main line modernisation has been designated as a priority project on the trans-European railway network.

Mr. Terry Lewis: When did the Secretary of State last use it?

Sir George Young: I used it when I visited Blackpool. I am pleased to announce that the United Kingdom has secured nearly £7 million of European funding this year for the scheme, and I am confident of securing further funds in 1996 and beyond.
I shall conclude by setting out how our policies will bring about a much-desired revival of the railways. In the past 45 years or so, Governments of all persuasions have poured money—more than £54 billion—into British Rail. Despite that, the railways declined. In 1953, 17 per cent. of journeys were by train and 24 per cent. of goods were moved by rail. Today, both figures are about 5 per cent. and they have continued to drop. Why? I believe that it is because state ownership and state control have failed the railways. The monolithic monopoly failed the passenger, it failed the freight customer, and it failed the owners—the taxpayers.

Mr. Lewis: Does the Minister not think that the concentration of public investment in roads during that period had something to do with it?

Sir George Young: No, I do not think that one can sustain that case. I do not think that that explains why the percentages have decreased. It may explain why the number of people who use cars has increased, but I do not think that it explains the modal shift.
The old-style British Rail structure was an introspective organisation and I am determined to refocus it outwards onto passengers. Something had to be done to wipe out the past and make a fresh start and someone had to create the conditions for a new approach. That is what we did with the Railways Act 1993. It restructured the industry: first, to improve the quality of service to the customer;


secondly, to improve the efficiency of the railways; and, thirdly, to halt and reverse the decline in the use of the railways.
We have put in place bodies to safeguard the wider interests of users and to regulate the industry. We have created a franchising director, who awards franchises to run passenger services on the basis of competitive tendering. He is also required to secure an overall improvement in the quality of railway passenger and station services.
The Government want to see more people travelling by train. One of the ways to persuade people to travel by train is to give them stable fares. That is what we have done, as I said a moment ago. We have given that commitment because we are confident that privatisation will reduce costs and benefit the travellers. For the first time, the wide-ranging protection and supervision of an independent external regulator has been placed on the industry, with clear duties to protect the interests of rail users. We have seen that working in practice: the regulator has taken firm steps to ensure that the number of stations selling through tickets will not be reduced.
I announced last week that we intend to privatise Railtrack in the spring so that, freed from the inevitable constraints of public sector funding, it can and will look to raise investment from a wide range of private sector sources. The flotation will open the way for institutional investors and lenders to finance Railtrack, thus harnessing private sector capital for investment in the railways. The privatisation programme will make Railtrack even more accountable to train operators who are freed from the old monolithic framework.
Labour's only ambition for the railways is to look back, not forward, and to return them to the dark ages of state control when they must compete with the national health service and education for taxpayers' money. Privatisation is already bringing better services to passengers and opening up new opportunities for businesses.
InterCity West Coast has introduced packages, including car park and meal costs. On all the Anglia trains there are facilities to improve access for disabled people. Thames Trains has connecting bus services using joint ticketing for tourist locations. With all that successful change in the railways, who knows? Perhaps the Opposition will do another about-turn and adopt our policy 'on privatisation. I invite the House to support the amendment in my name.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: In his rapid and plainly uncomfortable gallop through the speech that, presumably, was written by the same people who wrote speeches for his six predecessors, the Secretary of State did not mention the real reason for privatisation. We know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and from a leaked memo that the real reason why privatisation has to be pushed ahead is that it should raise £1.5 billion and it is absolutely essential for the arithmetic of tax cuts. That is what it is all about—putting money into the system before the general election, even if the cost to the taxpayer will be much higher thereafter.
It is clear that the chaos that is the hallmark of privatisation is spreading through the system. Some things are absolutely plain to the naked eye. When we stand on

stations and look at the track, we see weeds growing between the rails and we suddenly realise that the system does not carry out even routine maintenance.
The Secretary of State made play of the fact that the new regulator will insist on a new fixing of rail fares. He managed not to say that that resulted from an outcry over through ticketing, which the regulator has made clear he does not like. One suspects that he will get away from it as fast as possible.
The Secretary of State did not mention the fact that most rail travellers use discounted tickets. They represent the largest number of travellers, yet no guarantee has been offered that their interests will be safeguarded.
The position is much more serious and is truly depressing, because the Government are not interested in transport and are prepared to stand aside and watch the entire system fall apart. That is the political and economic reality.
Railtrack is not in command. Simple things are totally beyond it. I have watched disabled people try to stagger up a staircase where normally lifts would be available only to be told by Railtrack that it could take up to six weeks to get things moving again.
Railtrack's day-to-day administration is failing disastrously. It did not surprise me, therefore, that when its chairman was asked to present a clear plan for the next 10 years to the Select Committee on Transport he singularly failed to do so. He has given us no indication of how he expects Railtrack to develop, nor has he addressed what will happen when taxpayers realise that they will have to contribute even more to the dismembered system after privatisation. That will not be particularly popular with the electorate.
People have been told that privatisation is the answer as it will attract vast amounts of private finance and there will be a much higher standard of service. When they suddenly discover that, far from getting a higher standard, they will have to pay more to maintain less than they have now, they will be quite upset. They may even feel that the Government have failed to make a honest statement of what will happen to the railway industry after privatisation.
It is frightening. Two years ago, the Railway Industry Association told the Government that no contracts for rolling stock were being signed. It told them what would happen this year and next year. What was the Government's answer? They said, "Do not worry, all will be well in future." The Secretary of State said, "Do not worry about safety; everything is in control." He gave answers listing the recommendations in Sir Anthony Hidden's report on the Clapham disaster that were implemented. What he has not answered is why specific, important developments have not been carried out, even on the timetable set by his Government.
On train data recorders, we are told:
this equipment is specified for new rolling stock.
Great. True, we are not going to have any new rolling stock, but, if we did have any, it would have all the new equipment. I am sure that that will satisfy everyone.
We are told:
the National Radio Network system of communication


is to be installed. We have seen the need for that in the recent past. The system will be completed by 1997, because
Technical difficulties and higher priority safety projects have extended completion of this programme beyond BR's original target of 1995.
We know that the Government are very concerned about safety; surely they must be going to make automatic train protection a priority. No, I am afraid that they are not. By some dreadful mischance that is not at all plain to me, they have decided that that is not the answer.
A programme of alternative train protection measures is being developed"—
alternative measures, hon. Members will notice.
Railtrack and BR continue to examine the implementation of these measures"—
and so on and so forth; there are reams of it, all signed by the junior Minister.

Mr. Michael Stephen: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Dunwoody: No. I have a very short time in which to speak, and I am not going to waste it.
The reality is clear: the rolling stock is virtually not being built. That has caused job losses in York, and a knock-on effect in Derby and Crewe. If an incoming Government wanted to invest a large amount in rolling stock, they would find that very few companies were capable of tendering; those that did would almost automatically be foreign-owned. Why does that matter? The simple answer is that employment is needed in this country. The skills were available in this country; the Government not only dissipated them, but seemed to go out of their way to make it impossible for those men and women to find jobs.
I believe that the whole idea of privatising the railway system should have been abandoned. It really does not work. It is clear from the day-to-day operation of the system that it is creating incredible ill will among both passengers and staff. Above all, it is not addressing the real problems. No investment is being made in the system, because no one knows for how long the changes will be in place. There is no indication that there are vast amounts to be made through investment in new rolling stock, because no one knows who will lease it, how long they will be there and what charges they will have to pay.
We hear about Railtrack's demands for economic rates; what we do not hear about is the effect on many people of its immediate application—even simple, mean little things such as the fact that charity trips for people in my constituency have been wrecked because the charges are too high; stupid things such as the fact that rolling stock must be carried on the roads, not because that is an effective way of moving engines but because the charge for moving an engine from one end of the system to the other is so high that people prefer to transport them on the roads. What a crazy development. How can anyone even pretend to defend it?
The most depressing and frightening aspect of the programme, however, is the fact that the Government do not care about the railway system. What they care about is the money that they can raise, in any way at all, before the next general election. That is as clear as daylight. It is

clear to those who find themselves—as I did recently—standing on an empty platform. Although nearly 600 people were affected, not one member of staff was available to give any information. There had been an accident, but so many stations have now been "de-staffed" that the public had no one to turn to. One marvellous man on his way to give a concert in Liverpool addressed the air, asking, "Is there anyone, anywhere, who knows anything about what is happening?"
Answer came there none, because in 1995, under this Conservative Government, transport is not even a means to an end. It is not even a safe system of moving people and goods around. It is a way of flogging off assets. Handing over Red Star for £1 was an open insult to those who had built up the business which, until all this crazy reorganisation, used to make a profit. Looking at the railway system only as a means of making money out of its estates is an insult to all who want safe, warm and punctual trains to carry them to work and home again.
The Secretary of State is an honourable man, but like most of his predecessors he is hoping that, with any luck, he will not be in his job long, so it will not matter to him what happens when the Government's policy comes home to roost in a big way. I should warn him that morale in the rail system is disastrously low, because railway men and women have been treated with open contempt. They are forbidden to speak openly about the problems that arise in their daily jobs, they are continually asked to reapply for their own positions and many of them are told that they are no longer useful. Executives who boast that they do not understand the system are brought in to organise, and the results are seen from day to day in the administration of the system.
I believe that this is going to be a political catastrophe for the Government that will make many of their previous idiocies look like a beginner's effort. In the meantime, however, they will strip a respectable system in need of investment of all hope, and the cost to us all will be very great indeed.

Dr. Robert Spink: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). Although I enjoyed her hyperbole I found it somewhat distracting to hear her speak so obviously from the viewpoint of a vested interest. She is sponsored by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. I recall that in the debate here on 17 May almost every Opposition speaker was sponsored by one or other of the rail unions. That shows up the clear difference between them and us: they speak for the vested interest, we speak for the public interest. So much was clear from the two Opposition speeches that we have already heard today.
The Railways Act 1993 provided the legal framework for the privatisation of British Rail and the introduction of a new industry structure. The Act received Royal Assent in November 1993, and most of its principal changes were brought into effect by April 1994. But I shall begin by dealing with the recent history of the railways in this country.
The railways were first nationalised in 1948, created as a monolithic monopoly, a trade union-oriented organisation that ill served the general public. Over the past 45 years, about £54 billion of public money has been


ploughed into the rail system, but the return on that investment has been very poor. The number of journeys travelled by rail has fallen from 17 per cent. in 1953 to only 5 per cent. today—a lamentable statistic that we must do something to turn around. Indeed, today only 10 per cent. of the British public can claim to travel regularly by rail. We must increase that figure.
It would, in the face of the statistics and of this brief thumbnail sketch of the past 45 years, be irresponsible not to act to bring about change. It would be irresponsible also simply to throw more public money at the rail system, because that clearly has not done any good in the past and it is not the answer. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was quite outrageous and, I believe, disgraceful in his speech today. He misrepresented the facts and I shall make it clear how he did so.
The need for change is clearly established, and all parties agree on that. The only question is what form that change will take. In considering that, we must first define the objectives of the change and then make a sound judgment on its efficacy. Let me state what I consider, from my humble perspective, to be the three key objectives. I shall keep it simple for the benefit of Opposition Members, who like it that way.
The first—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has acknowledged it—is to ensure, safeguard and, indeed, enhance safety.
The second objective is to improve services and quality and to deliver lower costs for rail users. We owe it to them to make an improvement.
The third objective is to attract more passengers on to the railway, which would reduce costs for everybody by spreading the high fixed costs. It would improve the environment tremendously, particularly by reducing pollution, and by delivering a more friendly use of land many other environmental benefits would be delivered. It would also take the pressure off the rest of our transport infrastructure, which is very necessary. Achievement of the third objective would, of course, assist delivery of the first two objectives.
We must consider how to move forward. Privatisation is, I believe, clearly the best way to do so. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, it proved to be the best option with British Airways and the British Airports Authority. Opposition Members, I seem to recall, although I was not in the House then, said that the privatisation of BA would end in tears. They said that safety would be jettisoned, if hon. Members will excuse the pun. What happened? BA went from strength to strength. Nothing could have been further from the truth than Opposition Members' claims. They were irresponsible to make those claims, and they are irresponsible now to make claims about the railways.
BA has gone from strength to strength and is delivering better customer services. It is competitive and is one of the best carriers in the world, whereas French airlines are still absorbing massive amounts of public subsidy every year, taking money that could be spent on pensions, education and health. They will continue to fail until they are privatised, as they will be quite shortly, I guess.
If we decide that privatisation is the best way forward, we must look carefully at the mode of privatisation. The way in which we privatise must be carefully designed and

controlled to ensure that it yields the maximum benefits to the travelling public and entices more people to use the train.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), on the excellent privatisation scheme—it is extremely well based—that they have introduced. I am sure that, given good will and integrity, it will be made to work very well and will deliver great benefits to my constituents. I believe that my right hon. Friends have created the right climate for it to work. They have created the right climate for service levels to be improved through the passenger service requirements and for costs to be reduced by their decision to stop the continued and seemingly unavoidable increase in fares.
The facts are quite clear. Fares have increased by 29 per cent. in real terms over the past 16 years, during which we happen to have had a Conservative Government. That is a fact. That is a rise of less than 2 per cent. a year in real terms. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) revealed to the House on 17 May that, under Labour from 1974 to 1979, fares increased by 31 per cent. in real terms—a rise of over 6 per cent. a year in real terms. These figures are provided by the House of Commons Library.
There we have it. Under Labour, there was a more than 6 per cent. increase in real terms every year and under the Conservatives the increase has been under 2 per cent. I know which my constituents would prefer.
I also know that my constituents would prefer no rise at all—in fact they would prefer fares to fall in real terms; that would be good. It would address the cost-volume argument and get more passengers on to the railways so that we could continue to drive costs down. I know, therefore, how much my constituents welcome the policy of my right hon. and hon. Friends to hold fares at the level of inflation—that is, no real-terms rise—for the next three years and then to cut fares by 1 per cent. below inflation for the four years following. I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on their policies.
I now turn to my own railway line, the London-Tilbury-Southend line which my hon. Friend the Minister knows well. Bids are now maturing for my line. I understand from the press—I have no privy knowledge of this—that there are four short-listed contenders, three private and one management bid. I do not expect any nods or winks from my hon. Friend the Minister on that. However, I expect that he will make a decision on the matter in the coming weeks.
Thus we can see that there has been a healthy bidding process. There has been real competition and I am sure that the financial backers of all those four bidders have exercised great diligence in ensuring that the bids are sound and viable. I do not envy my right hon. and hon. Friends the decision that they will have to make. I shall try to help them by giving a personal view of the process of evaluation through which they will be going.
First, all my right hon. and hon. Friends know that I believe in smaller government, unlike the Opposition. Rail privatisation has a part to play in smaller government so we must look in the bid for a lower subsidy profile. We must look for subsidies to decline year on year. I freely acknowledge that it is unlikely that we shall get to zero


subsidy on the LTS line over the franchise period, which is said to be seven years. Nevertheless, we should see subsidies falling.
The question of the franchise period brings me to my second point, which is that the successful bidder must bring a significant investment programme with his bid. The problem is, however, that a seven-year franchise term militates against the investment that is needed. Such investment may not be viable over a six-year period. Perhaps a great investment programme would be more viable over a 10-year or 15-year period. I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Minister to be flexible in looking at the franchise periods when he is deciding on the bid, and especially so if the bidders are prepared to countenance new train orders as part of their bid. The bidders should, of course, be prepared to take on risk.

Mr. Bayley: The hon. Gentleman talks about the benefits of competition being brought into the railways. Once a franchise has been granted, the franchise operator—the train operating company—will have a monopoly for however long that franchise lasts. By suggesting that the franchise period is extended, is not the hon. Gentleman giving the private operator the opportunity to have a total monopoly?
The hon. Gentleman says that subsidy will continue and that all the profit during that period will come out of public subsidy, yet he is suggesting that there should be a monopoly on the line for a very long time—for twice as long as the Government have recommended in their proposals.

Dr. Spink: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and does so well. Of course there is a fine balance here, and a decision to be made between the monopoly and the need for a longer franchise period so that proper investment can be encouraged. He will be aware that ABB will deliver trains to the Great Northern line soon, after which it will be without substantial future rolling stock orders, so I hope that bidders will promote orders so that we can build up our manufacturing base in the area. I hope that he will moderate his tone and listen to what the Minister says on the subject when he winds up.

Mr. Bayley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for letting me intervene again, but perhaps he has missed the fact that the ABB factory in my constituency, which makes those trains, is to close in December because of the lack of orders that has resulted from rail privatisation.

Dr. Spink: That is the point that I was making. I am aware of what is happening and will deal with it later, but first I must make a little progress.
Bidders must be prepared to take risks. The private sector must accept the maximum responsibility for planning in the general economic environment. They must cope with risks such as changes in GDP, in inflation, in track access costs and in VAT regimes, and in many other factors. The public purse should be protected from those inherent risks as far as possible. That happens with other private businesses, and it has happened with other privatisations, such as that of British Airways, so I am sure that the Secretary of State will look to bidders to take on such risks.
I have covered three criteria. The House may consider those in a technical manner, but what really matters is the criteria that our constituents and passengers will adopt when judging rail privatisation policy, so I shall list some of the criteria in which my constituents will be interested.
First and foremost, the public want to see real change. Leaving things as they are does not represent a solution for my constituents. I do not know what the hon. Member for Oldham, West thinks about that. He sits there smiling, but it appears to me that he advocates no change. Or does he advocate throwing more public money at the railways? He has not told us.
The public, especially passengers, are impatient for change, and rightly so, because they have been ill served by the nationalised British Rail for 45 years, and at great cost to themselves—no less than £45 billion.
But changes must not be superficial. I am not talking about a new paint job for the coaches, a new uniform for the staff or a girl walking up and down like an air hostess—although that would be delightful, and most welcome on my LTS line.
The speed of implementation of change is a crucial requirement for securing public confidence. Equally crucial is quality, which must be present in every possible aspect of the business.

Mr. Stephen: My hon. Friend will know that Opposition Members are fond of painting the privatised railway as one in which franchise operators will cram passengers into cattle trucks. Surely he accepts that it will be in the interests of private train operators to make their railway as safe and reliable as possible to ensure that the customer sees rail transport as good value for money.

Dr. Spink: My hon. Friend makes a wise point. He is characteristically supportive of the Government and I thank him for his comments. I entirely accept what he says.
My local line, the London-Tilbury-Southend line, has enjoyed an investment of £150 million in resignalling. The money will have been spent by summer 1996, and the benefits in terms of reliability are already flowing through.
Reliability is not the only thing that needs to be improved; station services need to be improved too. We need real commitment from bidders, not just general aspirations, and I am sure that Ministers will consider such matters carefully. Reliability must continue to be driven up to higher levels than those dictated by the current passengers charter, and I am sure that really serious bidders will achieve that within their bids. Likewise, they must commit themselves to outperform the passenger service requirement. I am sure that they will consider that carefully.
Like reliability, the number of trains and seats provided is crucial on the LTS line. Again, we should be well served on the LTS line, because as well as the investment in resignalling, for which I thank my right hon. Friend, 25 replacement 317 sliding-door trains are coming to the line. I understand that the first two, for driver training, will be delivered in March 1996, and a further 10 by May that year. The full 25 will be in service by October next year, subject only to the ability of ABB of York to deliver the new 365 trains to the Great Northern route to release the 317 trains for service on the LTS line. They will replace some of the 35-year-old stock now on my local


line. I understand that the lease documentation for the 317 trains that are expected is now completed, and I hope that there will be no hiccups.
We cannot rest on our laurels or be complacent. We need a new option for new trains on the LTS line in addition to the 25 extra 317 sliding-door trains. There are two reasons for that. Clearly, new trains would deliver improved quality and reliability, attract more passengers on to the line and so drive down costs. Secondly, ordering new trains will help the United Kingdom manufacturing base. We need flexible financial arrangements, and we need the City to be innovative in developing those with the industry.
That is one of the most exciting elements in the franchise programme developments. It gives the private sector the opportunity to respond to the challenge of reviving rolling stock manufacturing in Great Britain and delivering the benefits that the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) seeks.
It has been some time since new rolling stock orders were placed. I hope that bidders will set out how they will place orders for leasing trains, and that that will breathe much-needed life into our rolling stock manufacturing industry.
All that will promote a more efficient and cost-effective railway on the LTS line, and at the same time improve service levels and quality. The public will want that to happen quickly, and if it does we shall see an improved development of the network and more passengers coming on to the line.
Four years ago, 35,000 passengers a day travelled on the LTS line, but now only 22,000 do so. There are two reasons for that fall, one cyclical and the other structural, and we understand them well. The cyclical reason is being dealt with now, as unemployment falls. Today I see that unemployment is at its lowest level for four years, and I welcome that.
We must have more employment in the construction industry in docklands, in the service industries and in the financial institutions in London. That will bring more passengers on to the line. But there is also a structural change, in that patterns of work are changing and employment is restructuring. Changing technology in City financial institutions has displaced many jobs. We must increase the number of passengers travelling on the line to 40,000 a day by 2000, and we shall do that only by privatisation. Doing nothing will result in the number of passengers continuing to fall, with those who remain bearing a greater burden of the cost, as they did under Labour from 1974 to 1979.
One item needed for the development of the network and the LTS line is a new Parkway station in my constituency, and I shall argue for the option to be kept open in the Castle Point local plan at the local plan public inquiry. Curiously, the Labour council wants to remove the option.
A new Parkway station would deliver great benefits to my constituents and to all travellers on the line. It would enable the LTS line to compete with the parallel Liverpool street line that lies to the north, and that is important. It would deliver real benefits and greater convenience to existing passengers, and would deliver general planning and landscaping benefits to Castle Point—for instance, a new and secure high-capacity car park. It would entice new passengers off the roads and on to rail, which would

have clear and widely accepted environmental benefits. It would protect and enhance the Benfleet station and the adjacent conservation area.
Labour's local strategy reflects Labour's national strategy. Labour talks as though its cares but acts as though it could not care less. Labour calls for more passengers on the line, but it obstructs developments that would encourage passenger growth and proper investment in the line.
I do not want to be party political, and I am sure that the House realises that. I want to act in the best interests of my constituents. I hope that the Labour party, both in this House and on my local council, will review its policy and support the sound common-sense change and development of our railway network.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, I should point out that we have two debates today and that Members must exercise great restraint. If each Back-Bench speech is as long as the previous one, there will be many disappointed hon. Members.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I am very pleased that you are in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, as it gives me an opportunity to say how sad I was to hear two days ago that you intend to complete your distinguished parliamentary career at the next general election. But it also gives me an opportunity—since I know that you know this line as well as I do—to tell the sad story of the south Devon rail farce. It is a farce that will teach us useful lessons about what will happen if the privatisation scheme before the House goes forward in its present form.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will recall that the original problem was that the railway services in south Devon from Exeter to Torbay did precisely what the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) said it should do. It attracted a lot of people off the roads and on to the rail service. It did precisely what everyone says should be done by the railways—it priced itself to the point where it attracted new custom. But the immediate difficulty was that the railway company found that it could not provide an appropriate supply.
As a result—this is well known following the media attention given to this issue—parents of children who travelled on that service found that their children were constantly having to stand in a dangerous situation. They complained to my colleague Richard Younger-Ross in Teignmouth, who took up the issue with the railway company.
Although both the speeches from the Front-Bench Members referred to the case, it is important that we look at it in slightly more detail than they had time to do. South Wales and West Railway wrote to the Rail Users Consultative Committee to say:
the changes were made in response to an extreme demand situation that we have experienced for the last two educational years.


What changes? The company's response to the changes was to increase fares at a stroke by 56 per cent. The letter went on to state:
Over 250 passengers were trying to join a train with a maximum of 150 seats.
We have only limited rolling stock resources. This means that we have no extra carriages to put onto the trains—all resources at these times are in use elsewhere, generally for commuters in Exeter. If we transferred coaches on to the Torre train, we would create even worse overcrowding somewhere else.
In effect, the company was admitting that it was trying to suppress demand. That is in direct contradiction to the statements, assurances, promises and prophecies we have had from the Conservative party.
Why did the situation arise? It arose for one simple reason. The explanation was given, not by the railway company and certainly not by the Department of Transport, but by the Rail Users Consultative Committee. Major-General Napier's analysis of the situation was that it occurred because of a gross shortfall in investment of up to 60 per cent. There are different estimates, but the figure is certainly more than 50 per cent. As a direct result of the privatisation hiatus, the company has not been able to deploy appropriate rolling stock to meet demand in the area.
This is not an isolated example—it may be exceptional but it is not isolated, even in the south-west. In my constituency this summer, services were cancelled almost every week, and sometimes several times a week, between Newquay and Par, and all that the travelling public were offered in exchange was a taxi service. That is totally inadequate, and has meant that more and more people have not gone on the railway at all and have driven the full length of their journey.
The cancellations occurred not because there was anything wrong with that particular stretch of line, nor because there was anything wrong with the rolling stock on that line. They did not occur as a result of service or operational difficulties of any sort on that line. The cancellations occurred because of the shortfall in the network as a whole. The company has been taking away rolling stock to meet the shortfalls from as far away as south Wales, and no doubt your constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker, has suffered in a similar way.
Throughout the network, the hiatus in investment in new rolling stock has caused chaos, and there is no indication whatsoever that the privatisation with which we are threatened in the next two or three years will solve that problem. The result is that we have overcrowding, and that is not just a feature of services in Torbay but a feature of many services throughout the country.
I wish to refer to a letter from someone who was a victim of the recent railway accident at Maidenhead, a tragic accident to which we should pay due heed. Professor Robin Hambleton wrote a short article for The Guardian about his experiences in the train accident on the evening of Friday 8 September. He described the

frightening experience of being on a grossly overcrowded train when a major incident takes place. He said in a covering letter to me:
It has always seemed to me to be rather strange that we allow standing on trains—buying a ticket ought to imply buying a seat (compare airplanes, theatres, cinemas).
The thrust of my argument is that the current complacency which permits overcrowding on trains means that we are on track for a tragedy. Remember, banning standing in football stadiums would have seemed unreasonable just ten years ago.
The direct result of the hiatus in investment in rolling stock is not just that we are losing some of the services we need or that we are losing opportunities to get more people back on to the rail system, but that we are creating tragedies in the making.
I do not blame the Secretary of State, who was obviously caught on the hop at the Blackpool conference by the interviewers, but the answer that he gave to this problem was clearly unbriefed and was totally inadequate. I must say that I was also disappointed by his answer this afternoon. To say that all will be well when privatisation takes over does not deal with today's situation, let alone give hope for the future. It was an absurd explanation, and it was made no better by its repetition today. That is symptomatic of the problems that the industry is facing and of the failure of nerve of many people at many levels of the rail industry. Many of the best people are leaving, which is also an indication that all is not well.
The farce of the timetables is also indicative of the chaos that disintegration is bringing to our once proud railway network. We have had as many supplements as The Sunday Times and about as much fiction from the British Rail timetable. Yesterday, I tried to get a simple and comprehensive timetable of InterCity services that I am likely to use, which I have always had in recent years. It is impossible to get that list because it is not brought together in any comprehensible form.
The Confederation of British Industry—usually an ally of the Government—has indicated the nature of the chaos that is to come. In its attack on Government transport policy, it said:
Somewhere in the course of the debate a realistic yet positive approach to transport has been lost.
Clearly, the CBI has no confidence that there are policy objectives and that they are carefully being driven to promote the future of our public transport system. Rail privatisation is clearly an example of blind faith taking precedence over experience.
I am in some difficulty. Having called this debate, I expected that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) would at long last get off the fence on the vexed subject of renationalisation, bringing back into public control Railtrack at least. I know the difficulties under which the Labour party is labouring. It recognises that, if it made a clear commitment to ensuring that the infrastructure is in the public sector, people on the left of the party would ask, "Why not go the whole hog?" I understand that, but after our debate in July when I pressed the Labour spokesman to come clean on the Labour party's intentions, it really seemed as though it was edging slowly but surely towards a recognition that Railtrack is the key to a successful rail system.
Hints were dropped at the Labour party conference. I do not think that one could accuse Mr. Jimmy Knapp of dropping a hint—it was rather more formidable than that. He made it clear that he was expecting a commitment to


match that which we Liberal Democrats have consistently made in the past 12 months. Indeed, he accused us of trying to steal Labour's thunder on the railways—not very difficult, I can assure the House.
We have not had that commitment this evening, but the House is entitled to know. Is it going to be pick and choose, mix and match, or is the Labour party going to commit itself to outright renationalisation of whatever has scampered away into the private sector before the general election?
We assumed that Labour would make its announcement today. The apprentice spokesman on transport, the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) might well make it during the final stages of the debate. Let us hope so. The travelling public are entitled to know whether we are going to make certain that Railtrack remains in the public sector. If only the Labour Opposition would get off the fence, stand up with the Liberal Democrats and say clearly, "In the event of our controlling the next Parliament, we will not allow those who have sought to make a profit out of the purchase of Railtrack shares to make that profit and 51 per cent. will be brought back if it has been sold."
It could be funded on a 10-year programme with bonds, it is not difficult, but we need to know whether the Labour party is prepared to make that commitment. The irony is that, once it has been made, it is highly unlikely that Railtrack can be sold. I am sufficiently a realist to understand that institutional investors as well as individuals are not likely to put their money into Railtrack next spring when there are a great many other things into which they could put their money which would have a real prospect of some profit. They will not invest in Railtrack next spring if the Opposition parties are absolutely united in saying that they will ensure that no one benefits from the sale.
During a trip to Wales this July, the hon. Member for Oldham, West was quoted in the Western Mail as saying:
At the moment I do not know how it will be done but when we are in power we will be looking to bring Railtrack and the private companies back into the public sector.
Two months later, responding to the pressure following our conference commitment to buy back Railtrack, he said rather sulkily:
We are not going to do the Tories' work for them by saying which bits of the rail network we would leave alone if they succeed in selling them.
He must have had some problems with his leader. We know that his leader and the leader's office have been dictating transport policy for some time. "Rail Privatisation News" reported a few months ago that, when it
suggested to Party insiders that a commitment to keep Railtrack in the public sector would be both electorally popular and appease the Party's left wing membership, the response was that 'these things are settled in the leader's office'.
The leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), has said that he is not going to give any "blank cheques" and yet his spokesman said at the Labour conference, in the debate on the resolution to which hon. Members have referred this afternoon:
There is the whole question of 51 per cent. buy-back, there are golden shares, there are bonds. There are many different options. I am not at this stage going to give away any details.

That sounds like throwing bones to the jackals at the Labour party conference, but it does not sound as though he is taking the same line as his leader.
I had hoped that we would have a clear commitment this afternoon, but we have not had it. I hope that we will have it later from the hon. Member for Fife, Central, whom I should describe as the transport spokesman-in-waiting.
In the meantime, please may we have a commitment to another important part of the jigsaw of rail privatisation—passenger rolling stock. The development of a rational land use and transport policy surely requires decisions about railway infrastructure to be taken in the national interest, not in the narrow, short-term interests of any private sector company. I ask the Minister and the shadow Minister for a categorical assurance that they are both prepared to spend sufficient money on the renewal of railway infrastructure and of rolling stock to ensure that they comply with the condition that they set out that, in 1994–95, it would remain in a steady and stable state—that we would not have any deterioration. We want a similar commitment for 1995–96.
On the three passenger rolling stock companies, we need to know what is at stake and how the bids will be considered. Are there serious bids and, if so, how many? Why does the Secretary of State think that there are so few? Can he confirm that the whole British Rail passenger fleet—coaches, locomotives, high-speed trains and diesel and electric multiple units—could be sold for as little as £1,300 million? What will be the expenses of that sale?
The House might be interested to know that the Government are engaged in the sale of a whole fleet for about the same sum of money as would be required to renew the fleet of just one train operating company—South East Trains is expected to need about £1,600 million and it serves only the county of Kent.
Rolling stock companies are likely to become unregulated private monopolies. No spare rolling stock will be available. They will simply be interested in short-term profit. If the Government agree leases of just eight to 10 years and guarantee 80 per cent. of that income, train services will simply come to a halt. There will be no spare capacity and there will be real difficulties.
In selling off the passenger rolling stock companies, the Government have stitched up a deal to get some money into the Treasury's coffers to contribute to pre-election tax bribes, without ensuring that there is a fully effective competitive environment. There is no commitment on the part of purchasers to invest any of the rental moneys in new rolling stock. There is no guarantee of improvement. Privatisation is nothing to do with enterprise or competition but is straightforward asset stripping—selling the family silver for a few coppers.
As the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) said, there will be no new orders for rolling stock. There will be no salvation for the beleaguered companies that supply rolling stock manufacturers, let alone for ABB itself. The hiatus in investment which Ministers said would not happen has arrived, is getting worse and will continue. We need commitments from Labour on that matter too.
Liberal Democrats envisage a busier railway which will require new rolling stock and an end to the fares policies that drive people away from the railways, not only in extreme examples such as south Devon but in many other parts of the country.
We believe that the rolling stock companies should be given a choice after the general election. They should be invited to become partners in a plan to expand the railway and submit themselves to a licensing regime to control costs and quality. We would ensure that they would be encouraged into new long-term franchise deals which would exclude the leasing companies, which would find themselves with a great deal of aging rolling stock and no financial basis on which to extend its life.
We do not think that taxpayers' money should be poured into the pockets of unregulated monopolies. We hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House accept our position. The rolling stock companies could become what I have described. We want to ensure that those companies are made to face genuine competition in supply and that their leases will not be extended or renewed on existing terms if they fail in that respect.
In our debate on 11 July, we covered a number of other aspects of rail privatisation. With your admonition ringing in my ears, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not propose to go back to them. However, as the Labour party initiated this debate, we want this evening to hear it endorse my last point and give a commitment on the future control of Railtrack. In the meantime, our constituents—the passengers, the travelling public—are suffering from an investment famine not only in respect of rolling stock but in respect of retracking, resignalling and basic track maintenance.
We have heard already of the number of instances where speed and weight restrictions have been imposed—for example, right the way down the Great Western and especially in my county of Cornwall. It is only a matter of time before such restrictions and the investment famine results in a disaster. A tragedy could well be in the making already. As my correspondent pointed out, the Maidenhead crash showed how near we have come to dangerous overcrowding. Safety may, in the Secretary of State's words, be paramount. If it is, the best way that he can serve that objective is to postpone the privatisation of Railtrack.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that Madam Speaker earlier this afternoon reserved her ruling on the implications of the European Court of Justice judgment which outlawed the employment of women by quota. Reports are running around Westminster that three Labour Members have applied to the courts for relief because of the way in which the shadow Cabinet elections were arranged.
There is also a report that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) may be involved since he lost his national executive committee place because of quotas. This clearly touches on some matters relating to privilege. Can you confirm whether those reports are true?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I cannot confirm whether they are true. Whether they are true or not, I cannot see that they are a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: In the light of what has been said about the need for short speeches, I intend to be brief. The hon. Member for North Cornwall

(Mr. Tyler) said two things with which I entirely agreed; with the rest of his speech I entirely disagreed. First, I entirely echo his genuine tribute to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We all wish you well and are sorry to hear that you do not intend to continue in the House beyond the next general election.
I also entirely agreed with the hon. Gentleman's reference to bones being tossed to the jackals of the Labour party at its conference in Brighton. That is something that we have all witnessed in the past and have now seen again. For the hon. Gentleman to suggest, however, that anything at all could happen in response to his own party conference is laughable. I recall that the main news item of the week related to a goldfish at No. 10 Downing street and not to anything that was said at the Liberal Democrat conference.
I want to concentrate on the policies of the Labour party and its lack of firm commitments. Its approach to rail privatisation has degenerated from what was at best a policy of hit and miss to one of scare and miss. In considering rail privatisation, we must examine what services are to be offered to the passengers—the customers. I have spoken on this subject before and I said that the acid test of the involvement of the private sector in running rail services is whether there will be better customer service.
What do we find? We find that the current agreements between Railtrack and the first three franchises have already created between 13 and 20 per cent. more capacity than was needed to deliver the timetable at present in force. In a press release on 31 January, Mr. Bob Horton, the chairman of Railtrack, said:
This will ensure that they"—
the first three franchise operators—
are able to run present service levels, and give them space to step them up.
Contrary to Labour party scare stories, the train operators have made it clear that not only do they have no plans to reduce existing service levels but many are planning to increase them. For example, South West Trains has found 20 per cent. more capacity. Its press release of 31 January this year states:
We plan further new services … a new fast service between Waterloo-Guildford and Portsmouth, the Guildford Shuttle; extra trains between Ascot and Reading—providing four trains an hour; and new through services between Waterloo and Horsham and extra trains between Waterloo and Epsom.
Great Western Trains has found 18 per cent. more capacity. Its press release states:
The timetable plan …maintains the current level of services and consideration is being given to the introduction of additional ones.
For many years before coming to the House, I commuted on the London, Tilbury and Southend line and its progress has already been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) in his excellent speech. Its press release states:
LTS Rail introduced additional off-peak trains … Completion of the £150 million LTS resignalling project in 1996"—
to which my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point also rightly referred—
will provide further opportunities to encourage car users to switch to LTS Rail. We have negotiated a track access contract which provides scope for this".


Let us consider other railway lines with which I am familiar. A press release from the director of ScotRail, Mr. John Ellis, in May this year stated:
ScotRail is committed to expansion of the services we offer our customers. This is confirmation that contrary to constant speculation, no routes in Scotland are under threat and provides for the first time a longer term commitment for the continuity of services.
A press release from the finance director of Midland Main Line, Mr. Geoff Evans, states:
Midland Main Line is a commercial organisation and recognises the need to provide the level of service that customers demand and we will continue to strive for these levels of service.
Constantly monitoring needs, we continue to make alterations to improve our service such as the recent introduction of later trains both to and from London.
We can see that, contrary to the myths and scare stories of the Labour party, services are being improved for customers and passengers. That is the acid test, the proof of the pudding.
The Labour party has deliberately and consistently sought to mislead the House and the country about the passenger service requirements. It ignores the fact that, for the first time. in the history of railways, the passenger service requirement introduces a guarantee for customers—an irreducible minimum below which no service will ever be allowed to fall. Never in the history of railways, private to 1948 or nationalised since, has that existed. It is this Government who have introduced it as a guarantee for passengers and customers.
That is why I remain confident that privatisation will continue to produce ever more benefits and improvements in services for customers. I travel regularly on the west coast main line and was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirm yet again the Government's commitment to upgrading that line and improving services on it.
Privatisation will undoubtedly result in access to private capital for investment, which the railways will continue to need. It is only through access to private capital that such investment will be made. The Labour party would not be allowed to write blank cheques, as its leader has repeatedly made clear. That is why the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who opened the debate for the Labour party, was not prepared to make any such promises.
Weasel words have been used to suggest to the rail unions that promises have been made in order to try to guarantee their support. It is not surprising that the Labour party continues to be dominated by the rail and other unions when no fewer than 186 Labour Members are sponsored or supported by trade unions. I went through the list of those sponsorships and saw that no fewer than 50 Labour Members are sponsored or supported by transport unions. A list of shadow cabinet members—at least, the current shadow cabinet until later tonight—is sponsored or supported by rail unions.
Once again, the Labour party is in the pocket of the producer culture—the trade unions—bought and paid for. They do not speak for the customers or passengers but continue to speak for the union barons who control Labour, as they have always controlled Labour and will continue to control Labour. The Labour party is interested not in passenger or customer service but in its union paymasters and bosses. The public at large and the travelling public will have no faith in the scare stories and myths put out by the Labour party.

Mr. John Heppell: I have been a little surprised by the tone of this debate. I do not know the seat of the last speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Blackpool, South."] It might have been more appropriate if he were the hon. Member for the planet Krypton because he is certainly not from the same planet as me and does not represent the same views as I hear from my constituents. I shall deal with one of his points by saying that I am sponsored by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, which is one of the railway unions. I am proud of that and glad that the hon. Gentleman was able to look at lists and see the interests of every Labour Member. I should like to see a list showing Conservative Members' business interests, but unfortunately Conservative Members have consistently tried to block such openness.
I was also surprised that the Liberal Democrats tried to turn this debate into a political point scoring match. We are discussing the country, not party political views, and they have made cheap shots. I am not waiting for my hon. Friends the Members for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) or for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) to make a commitment to return the railways to public control because we have already had that commitment at conference, and it came from neither of those two hon. Friends but from the leader of the Labour party. He made a commitment that the railways would be returned to public control and be publicly accountable, and that is good enough for me. Hon. Members may sneer and try to twist things round, but the commitment effectively exists. When it was made at conference, I saw that Jimmy Knapp was as delighted as I was, and I am certain that the majority of people in the country were also delighted.
While I do not expect it from Conservative Back Benchers, I expected much more sympathy and empathy from the Secretary of State. We have seen recent reports of overcrowding on trains and commuters literally scrambling for seats. Given that the Secretary of State and the Minister for Railways and Roads have spent the past few months scrambling for a seat in terms of parliamentary selection, I thought that they would empathise with commuters.
Rather than abuse the time available as others have, I shall try to keep my speech short and sweet. I sat on the Committee which discussed the Railways Bill, where many assurances were given about what would happen in the privatisation process. Many of my hon. Friends feel that, during the passage of the Bill, we were, if not deceived, at least misled about what would happen. I do not feel that we were misled.
I am not trying to be charitable to the Ministers involved. I recognise that the current Secretary of State and the Minister for Railways and Roads are new boys and I do not wish to make them the villains of the piece, but there is plenty of evidence that their predecessors made commitments on which they have reneged. For example, during the passage of the Bill, the privatisation of Railtrack was not discussed. It was simply not on the cards. We knew nothing about it until, last October, the Secretary of State for Transport suddenly announced that Railtrack would be privatised. So we had no proper debate about that.
After a great deal of pressure, commitments were made on through ticketing and we were told that it would be protected. Then, in the past year, the Government proposed to reduce the number of stations that could sell through tickets. Of the 2,500 stations which currently exist, 1,300 are staffed. We were told that 294 stations would be allowed to sell through tickets, which did not rule out through tickets but meant that nobody could get hold of them. Luckily, because of the prompt action of Labour Front-Bench Members and others who brought the matter to the public's attention, that proposal was dropped.
We were given guarantees about passenger services and told that they would be kept at current levels. Although Conservative Members say that under the passenger services requirements we have been guaranteed a minimum number of trains for the first time, that minimum is 15 or 20 per cent. below the current number so it is not much of a guarantee. After a great battle, we were reassured that there would be free competition and were told that British Rail could bid for franchises. However, when the first three franchises were put out, the Secretary of State excluded British Rail from bidding.
I am an ex-railway employer—I mean employee. The way things are going, I may be an ex-railway employer in the future. I remember when we had a system called "Organising for Quality", when the railways were split into business sectors. It was called "O for Q". I say that carefully because at the time it was a standing joke within the rail industry that "O for Q" was what the Government and British Rail's management thought of their customers and work force. We were suspicious that the railways were being prepared for privatisation. Happily, and unhappily, I was wrong about that.
In some respects, I can understand that, if a Government plan to privatise something, that is a legitimate policy and, although I may not agree with it, they have the right to pursue that policy. However, the Government have not considered the way in which the industry works most effectively. Had the privatisation been done by business sector or by breaking the railways down into geographical areas or regions, one could see some logic in it. But rather than privatise the railway so that it can operate more effectively within the private sector, the Government have simply sought to sell it in the easiest way without considering how it will operate afterwards. Remarks by the Secretary of State and some Conservative Members have proved that, to them, success will be achieved if they manage to sell it all. To me that is nonsense.
I believe that the attempt to pass the railways into the private sector will fail. Should it succeed, however, we should try to ensure that they operate in the most efficient and effective way within the private sector. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) may talk about the objectives of privatisation, but the big problem for me is that the only objective I can see is that of selling off the railways.
When I served on the Railways Bill, a chart was used to show how the responsibilities, financial arrangements and safety requirements of the various proposed companies would fit together. Even before the creation of Railtrack, involving 12,000 employees, 5,000 of them signalmen, I remember describing the proposals as a

cobweb of confusion because it was impossible to tell who would be responsible for finances, operational measures and safety. The scenario is even worse now, because we are talking about 25 train operating units which will become train operating companies, three rolling stock companies which will lease stock, three new freight companies, a regulator and a franchising director. One can see how the confusion will become worse and worse. Without clear lines of responsibility and communication, all that we have is a recipe for disaster.
We need look no further than the events of the past two days to understand the importance of clear lines of responsibility. The arrangements between the Home Secretary and the Director General of the Prison Service appear to be straightforward, sensible ones. The Home Secretary is at the top, and below him is the director. Even in that simplified structure, however, it seems that they could not agree about who should make the decisions. Once we have 100 different rail organisations working independently, who will then decide who is responsible for them? We are talking about thousands of licences being issued as well as thousands of legal agreements between different organisations. What is on offer is a dream for accountants, consultants and solicitors, and a nightmare for the rest of us.
I believe that among Conservative Members there is a significant minority—perhaps not counting those who are present—who recognise that the rail privatisation proposals are a disaster. During the passage of the Railways Bill, I realised, as I am sure many others did, that Ministers were saying things with tongue in cheek. They knew that it was nonsense and they did not believe in it. In some ways the previous Secretary of State for Transport inherited that Bill. He got so used to repeating nonsense, and did it so convincingly, that it made him eminently qualified to become chairman of the Conservative party.
One of the Ministers responsible for driving the Bill through was the Minister for Transport in London, for whom I have a great deal of time: he is witty and I enjoyed working with him on that Bill, as I have done since on local transport projects. He has always been helpful, but after spending all that time working on the privatisation of the railways, what does he plan to do? He plans to go off and sell cars. If I had made such a shambles of the railways as the Government have done, I think that I would go off and sell cars as well.
The privatisation proposal gained little initial support except from within Conservative Central Office. Hardly anyone was in favour of it then, and even fewer people want it to go ahead now. As a result, morale within the railways is at its lowest level ever and investment in the industry is at its lowest level for 20 years. Hon. Members do not need to believe me because one does not have to do a great deal of research to confirm that what I have said is true.
Just this Monday, The Guardian quoted not a rabid socialist like me, who is intent on keeping the railways under public control, but the chairman of the Rail Users' Consultative Committee, Major General Lennox Napier—the Conservatives have not managed to replace him yet—who can hardly be described as a hero of the left. The article reported:
He said investment had never been lower for 20 years. Until 1993, it was running at around £1 billion a year, but it is now down to £400 million.


He said that infrastructure was deteriorating and that up to 85 per cent. of delays were caused by infrastructure failures such as poor signals. He also said that there were now 2,600 fewer coaches than there were six years ago.
Investment in rolling stock is important. When we first started our discussions on the Railways Bill, there was a great deal of talk about competition. Now there is no competition between public and private or between private and private because no coaches are being built. It does not matter whether we are talking about ABB Transportation or GEC Alsthom: there is no competition between them now because they are united in telling the Government that they want any sort of order, but no orders have been made for this year or the next. When one appreciates that such orders have a two-year running period, it is clear that there will be no orders for the next few years.
Unlike the Secretary of State for Defence, I would not describe myself as a little Englander. In a few years' time, when we have a more sensible transport policy under a Labour Government, we shall put money into building rolling stock, but I fear that by then we shall have lost not one coach manufacturing job to Europe, nor even 100 or 1,000 jobs—we shall have lost an entire industry. It will have disappeared because of the Government's short-sighted view.
Given the Conservative Members in the Chamber, I fear that my request may fall upon deaf ears. Nevertheless, I ask those with some honesty and integrity to recognise that the privatisation proposal is nonsense. I do not ask them to take the more drastic course adopted by one of their ex-Members by crossing the Floor, but I hope that when it comes to the vote they will cross into a different Lobby. I hope that they will put common sense above dogma and put commuters and their constituents above Conservative Central Office. They should put the country above their party because that is what the debate is all about.

Mr. Peter Luff: When the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) presented his ten-minute Bill earlier today, he said that it was supported by a list of the "usual suspects". Today's attendance is rather like that of the usual suspects for any rail privatisation debate.
I am particularly pleased to see that one of those suspects is the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), who is sponsored by the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen. One of her most celebrated roles before she joined the House was as the Queen who died with the name of Calais engraved on her heart. Perhaps it was over-identification with that particular role that sent her to Dover today—

Ms Glenda Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Evesham is misleading the House. I have never played the Queen who had the name of Calais carved upon her heart.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I thank the hon. Lady for making that point, which was one

of information and not a point of order. I suffer from that practice; if we were all to try to correct what other people say we would never get to the end of any debate.

Mr. Luff: My knowledge of history and literature is as grievous as the hon. Lady's knowledge of geography, because I am the Member for Worcester, not Evesham. I apologise profoundly to the hon. Lady if I got the literary and historic reference wrong; it was a fine role none the less.
I believe that the hon. Lady can at least confirm that she went to Dover today to oppose the privatisation of the port on the grounds that she is scared that the port might be bought by the people of Calais. As far as I am concerned, all that she was doing was trying to rob the port of Dover of the advantages of privatisation which have accrued to the other privatised ports of the United Kingdom. I believe that she will try to catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker, when she will seek to do the same things to the railways of the United Kingdom, seeking to rob them of the advantages that will accrue from privatisation.
Another of the usual suspects is the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), whose debate on the rail network on 11 July was not much better attended by Opposition Members than is today's debate. It makes me wonder how passionately they feel on the subject. There were no more Opposition speakers then and there were no better arguments. It is not surprising, really. The Opposition cannot duck the simple fact that they have opposed every privatisation so far, and that every privatisation so far has resulted in improved customer service.
It was obvious from the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that he had no faith in the customer to take decisions about what was in his or her best interests, or in the private sector to take decisions about what was in the best interests of the people whom they sought to serve. His faith reposed entirely in the state knowing best. Old Labour is alive and well in Oldham, West.
Transport privatisations have been especially successful. That is what makes me so sad.
We have heard many times in the House—but they are worth repeating—the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) about the privatisation of British Airways:
It will be the pantomime horse of capitalism if it is anything at all."—[Official Report, 19 November 1979; Vol. 974, c. 125.]
We now know how wrong that prophecy was. British Airways carries more international passengers than any other carrier—about 6 million more than its nearest competitor in 1993.
The extent of the success of those transport privatisations makes me especially delighted that Worcester will be among the first stations in the country to benefit from the first round of franchise awards, when the Great Western main line services are privatised in the first batch of franchise awards.
I am saddened by the fact that Opposition Members appear to believe that we do not share their genuine anxiety—although so many of them are supported by the rail unions, somewhere under that there is a genuine concern for the passenger—to improve the lot of the travelling public. We cannot stand by and watch the continual decline of the railways, whose share of all


passenger journeys in Britain has decreased so sharply since the nationalisation of the railways after the last war. That decline is the result of many factors, but I am convinced that chief among them has been the stultifying effect of nationalisation.
Speech after speech and article after article by the hon. Member for Oldham, West promises a renaissance of the railways. It makes a great soundbite, but what does it mean? What happened after 1948 when Labour was the Government responsible for the railways? What happened between 1964 and 1970? What happened between 1974 and 1979? No renaissance of the railways there.
Conservative Governments have found it difficult too, labouring under the shackles of nationalisation. The time has come for a new approach to the railways, to reverse that tragic relative decline.
I am not one of the people who believe that everything is wrong about the railways—far from it. I use them as much as possible, although, sadly, that is not as much as I should like. I am always impressed by the punctuality of the services. If only, I repeatedly say, I could reach my destination as reliably by car as I can by train. I am impressed by the commitment of British Rail to care for disabled people. It has an outstanding record in that regard.
However, we cannot allow the decline in market share to continue. That is the ultimate touchstone for any business; if it is losing market share, it is failing. The Government's proposals seek to put right that failure.
The speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West had many echoes of an article in the current edition of Railway Magazine—long on cliché and mockery, the politics of destruction, but short on understanding, vision and practical solutions. I especially regretted, in his speech and in the article, his shroud-waving over safety on our railways—shroud-waving that has been repeated by the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for North Cornwall.
It is worth reminding people the facts about rail safety, not the myths. The independent Health and Safety Commission confirmed that there is no evidence of any overall decline in health and safety standards since the reorganisation of the railways in preparation for privatisation. Railways are one of the safest means of transport—possibly the safest means of transport—and serious train accidents are very rare indeed. Total fatalities on the railways in 1993–94 are the lowest ever recorded.
One rather complicated statistic is worth repeating. A passenger needs to travel more than six hours by rail to risk a one in a million chance of serious injury or death, five hours by air, two and a half hours by oach—still a very safe form of transport—only 30 minutes by car and a minute by motor cycle. I do not have the figures for push-bikes, so the Secretary of State can sleep easily in his bed tonight.
Rail travel is supremely safe, and it is not only the passenger that is safe. In his most recent annual report, Her Majesty's Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways acknowledged that, in 1993–94, the railway coped with

organisational change while achieving the fewest ever passenger deaths and work force fatalities. The railways are profoundly safe.

Mr. Bayley: The hon. Gentleman is quoting rather selectively from the reports. A briefing given to me by the Library tells me that, between 1993–94 and 1994–95, deaths from railway accidents increased from 14 to 15, major injuries increased from 46 to 69 and derailments from 113 to 149. He paints a rosy picture by choosing those figures that support his argument rather than looking across the board.

Mr. Luff: I am profoundly disturbed by that intervention. I thought that the hon. Gentleman sought to promote investment in the railways. There he is again, promoting fear of rail travel. If I heard those figures correctly—I am not sure that I heard them entirely correctly—he spoke about an increase in fatalities from 14 to 15. Is that correct?

Mr. Bayley: I spoke about that figure, the increase in major injuries from 46 to 69 and the increase in derailments from 113 to 149.

Mr. Luff: After the debate, the hon. Gentleman and I will together go to the Library and find out how many people are killed and injured on the roads of Britain in accidents. I bet that we find that, each and every day, more people are killed than those figures. Those increases, although regrettable—I do not want any increase—remain tiny and the railways remain one of the safest ways of getting from A to B that one can devise.
I am profoundly disappointed that the hon. Member for York, who rightly wants people to invest more in railways, should suggest that the railways are becoming more dangerous when it is transparently obvious that they are not from the very figures that he quoted.
The article by the shadow Transport Secretary, the hon. Member for Oldham, West, is littered with pejorative and inaccurate statements. I despair that a transport spokesman can write such an article.
I have some sympathy with one argument in the article. The hon. Gentleman speaks about the relatively short length of franchises. I believe that there would have been some advantage in having franchises longer than seven years. Apart from anything else, if, by some dreadful misfortune—which I do not think will befall the country—there were to be a Labour Government, the period of the franchise would carry on beyond the time of the Labour Government and could be renewed by the next Conservative Government. However, I believe that it is a hypothetical worry.
What about the claim that we have made a shambles of services to the passenger? The hon. Member for Oldham, West is not in the Chamber, but I shall happily invite him to come to Worcester and look at the services to passengers in my area, which are steadily improving, as I shall show him if he intends to come. I shall discuss that later.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West commented about passenger services requirements—an issue also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins). The comment that the hon. Member for Oldham, West made was a profoundly dishonest misrepresentation of the truth when my constituents, for the first time ever, have a guarantee about rail services. I


believe that there is even a guarantee on the sleeper services to Cornwall that so worried the hon. Member for North Cornwall earlier. The guarantee that those services will run has never existed before. It is not a specification but a guarantee.

Mr. Tyler: As you, Madam Deputy Speaker, know, the service between the west country and Scotland, far from being guaranteed, has actually been removed.

Mr. Luff: I was, of course, referring to the service between London and the west country. If I remember rightly, it is now being run from Waterloo to enable better connections with the Eurostar services, which should make it still more attractive.

Mr. Sebastian Coe: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has given way. He may be unaware that one of my regular trips to the Department of Transport to visit my hon. Friend the Minister of State's predecessor was made in order to plead the case for the sleeper. We had deep discussions with British Rail, which could at no stage guarantee the sleeper service for more than five or six months at a time. The point that must be made is that for the first time the sleeper service is now enshrined in a mechanism that will guarantee it for the next seven years. We could never have had that guarantee under the existing system.

Mr. Luff: And that is one of the great advantages of the privatisation process. I thank my hon. Friend for his comments.
In the article, the shadow Secretary of State for Transport talks about job cuts, which are always regrettable. I do not welcome redundancies, but I am left with the uncomfortable feeling that the hon. Gentleman still feels that the railways are being run for the benefit of those who work for them, not for the benefit of those who use them. It drives me back to my deeply held conviction that the Labour party remains driven by producer interests. The secret deals that it now seems to be doing with the unions in the event that it should ever gain power further reinforce that view. Of course we want to see a vibrant railway industry. I want employment in the railway industry to increase as more people use it. But I do not want the railways to be used as a job creation scheme which would increase taxes and fares.
In the article we also read about one of Labour's old canards. The hon. Member for Oldham, West states:
Privatisation will break up the railways into no less than 94 separate units, all competing, contracting and co-operating with each other simultaneously.
Every station with more than one operator will need more than one timetable
I honestly do not think that the hon. Gentleman understands the complexity of the status quo. Just because a huge, bureaucratic monolith is running the railways it does not mean that they are run efficiently or that there are not agreements between the operating units and the railways.
I again ask the hon. Gentleman to come to Worcester. I have in my hand the five timetables that I presently have to contend with in Worcester—not under a privatised railway. They are the timetables that we have had year in, year out in Worcester under British Rail. I hope that a privatised railway will consider the subject and decide that it would be easier for passengers if all the timetables were put into one booklet. I hope that the privatised

railways will co-operate with each other to produce a single booklet. What I have in my hand is the product of a unified British Rail, not of the 94 units of which the hon. Gentleman speaks.
Later in the article, the hon. Gentleman mentions an issue that was discussed at great length when he was still in the Chamber. He states:
Leaked documents are particularly welcome. I promise to make good use of them
I wonder whether that gives the game away for Labour. First, it proves that the Labour party is unfit to govern because it encourages civil servants to leak. If ever the Labour party formed a Government it would find how impossible that makes it for a Government to conduct a rational discussion of the issues. Secondly, perhaps it is because the hon. Gentleman knows in his heart of hearts that Labour never will form a Government that he is so anxious to encourage the leaking process to continue.
Under the direction of the hon. Member for North Cornwall the debate moved on to the issue of what Labour intended to do if by any misfortune it ever gained power. In the article the hon. Member for Oldham, West said:
Labour believes in a publicly-owned, publicly accountable rail system. If the Tories push through this idiotic policy and complete the sell-off, we will rebuild a public railway during the life of the next Labour Government.
How? What will they do? We are all in the dark. None of us has the slightest idea, least of all the Labour party.
May I draw the Labour party's attention to an editorial in a newspaper that urged the Labour vote at the last election—so it is no friend of the Conservative party. On Thursday 12 October the Financial Times states:
The starting point for both sides should be the needs of the passengers and freight carriers whom the railway exists to serve. This rules out any return to the status quo ante, which was chronically inefficient and could not in any event be recreated without massive, debilitating upheaval.
The opposition parties appear to accept this, which makes their renationalisation commitment bizarre as anything other than a cheap electoral gimmick. In practice, it appears that Labour will follow the Liberal Democrats and interpret 'state control' as meaning a majority stake in Rai1track. Mr. Tony Blair would be foolish to pledge any more if he has any regard for his 'tax and spend' reputation … Any renationalisation commitment will create damaging uncertainty for Railtrack's management. But far more problematic is the future subsidy regime for the network … The cry for subsidies will not be reduced when the trains are privately operated"—
although the hon. Member for Oldham, West threatens, bizarrely, a reduction in subsidy to privatised operators, and I simply do not understand his logic—
particularly if transport policy …remains so heavily weighted against rail use.
I believe that it is weighted in that way, which is what privatisation should address.
Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition dare not say publicly what he intends to do about the railways for fear of upsetting those very unions that sponsor so many Labour Members.

Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend referred to the excellent quote from the Financial Times and the importance of getting freight back on to rail. Does he agree that one of the chief faults of the nationalised railways since 1948 is that they have consistently taken freight off rail? There has been more and more waste in the use of resources.
One of the chief benefits of privatisation will be a private sector organisation dedicated to getting freight back on to rail.

Mr. Luff: I could not have put it better myself and I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am confident that one of the many advantages will be an increase in the share of freight traffic using railways, in particular using the access to continental markets through the channel tunnel.
Four key advantages of privatisation have come through in today's debate. First, the individual railway companies will become more responsive and accountable to their customers, which is what matters, not to a Secretary of State sitting in Marsham street, worried about juggling figures between education, health and railways. They will be responsive and accountable to their customers. They will offer an improved service to their customers, not a worse service, which they have no interest in providing.
The railway companies have fixed costs and, to reduce them, they will improve the service and get more people on to the railways. They will do so largely through the better marketing of services. Only about 7.5 per cent. of our constituents ever use trains. The other 90-odd per cent. do not. Half of them do not even know how to use trains; they do not what trains go where or when; they do not understand the railways, which are almost a closely guarded secret within the railway establishment. We need to break out of that secrecy with private sector marketing skills and with access to private finance.
We have seen the promise; we have seen what is to come. We saw the privatisation of On Board Services. A newspaper stated that a spokesman for the company said:
In the future, passengers could find a hot meal, prepared on board and delivered to their seats, included in the ticket price. `You're going to see an increase in customer service,' he said. A range of new products will also be introduced.
That is what railway privatisation will do—it will provide a better service and more people will use it. I commend the privatisation to the House.

Ms Glenda Jackson: The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) referred to myself and my colleagues sitting on the Labour Benches as "The Usual Suspects". One good film title deserves another and everything that we have heard emanating from the hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the Conservative Benches could justifiably be defined as "Pulp Fiction".
The hon. Member for Worcester mentioned the visit that I made today with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) to Dover. He made two correct statements to the House. First, in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), I am proud to be sponsored by a transport union—in my case, the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen. We were campaigning in Dover against the Government's proposed enforced privatisation of the Dover port.
The hon. Member for Worcester was markedly lacking in information—not only of a literary and historical nature—about what has motivated that campaign, over

and above the Government's attempts to impose yet another privatisation. The people, the public, the citizens of Dover—those who live and work there—are utterly opposed to the privatisation. It is not only the citizens of the town, but the people who use the port, the businesses, the chamber of commerce, the mayor of Dover and the mayor of Deal who are totally opposed to the privatisation.
In a nutshell, the pulp fiction that we have heard emanating from the Conservatives is that the Labour party is opposed to the privatisation of the railways because we are not concerned with the public interest while Conservative Members are committed to privatisation because they have the public interest at heart. Every poll conducted in this country since the Government set off on their benighted journey of railway privatisation has proved overwhelmingly that the people of this country reject the idea of rail privatisation because they know that, far from expanding and improving railway services in this country, it will destroy them. They are already seeing that such services as they have are deteriorating.
Last year, the report on the requirements laid down for railways under the citizens charter showed that, within those seven franchise networks, there have been increases in the number of cancellations. Increasingly trains fail to reach their destinations on time. Over-arching the arguments about rail privatisation is the salient point—that everyone except Conservative Members seem to have taken on board—about the environment. People in this country and throughout the world are recognising that over-dependence on forms of transport that require petrol-driven engines is leading to the destruction of the environment in our local communities and possibly the world.
Yet the Government are presenting the idea of rail privatisation as a means of enlarging and enhancing the use of our railways. The system would mean the destruction of our railways. As my colleagues have pointed out on more than one occasion, the Government's much-vaunted guarantee of minimum service guarantees a service that is infinitely less and, in many instances, infinitely more expensive than the previous one.
I recently had the privilege of being invited to address the annual conference of the National Association of Rail Users, which was held within the confines of my local authority last weekend. Representatives from every corner of these islands attended the conference and each and every one of them provided anecdotal evidence about the reduction in their rail services since the Government set out on that benighted track. The representatives are passionate about their desire to use the railways, to encourage others to use them and to see an expansion of our railway system. Every delegate, without fail, said that the Government's privatisation plans would not secure the expansion of our rail network.
There has been much talk about the need for additional investment in our railway system, and no one would argue with that. However, I think that Conservative Members have been less than direct in making it clear to the House and to the country that privatisation has so far brought no new money to our railway system and that no new money will be introduced via the franchises when they are up and running.
The Government have spent £1.25 billion of taxpayers' money in an attempt to bring about privatisation, without investing one penny piece in our railway network. The


Government are spending £25,000 per day on lawyers' fees alone in their attempt to privatise our railways. That money would have been much better spent laying new track, buying new rolling stock, improving signalling and ensuring that safety measures are adhered to.
No one in this country—apart from Conservative Members—wants or believes in rail privatisation. Earlier today my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) urged Conservative Members if not to cross the Floor permanently, at least to join us in the Division Lobby tonight. I join him in that call.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: Conservative Member after Conservative Member has risen in the debate to say that every privatisation that has taken place under the Conservative Government has been a success. I remind them of one early rail privatisation—the privatisation of British Rail Engineering Ltd. five years ago—which was hardly a success.
Five years ago, the British Rail carriage works in York employed 3,000 people. By the time of the last election, that figure had decreased to 1,650, and by the end of the year no one will be employed there. ABB invested £50 million in the York works on the basis of the Government's indications about likely investment by railway companies in new rolling stock. However, that investment never came, and the factory closed.
Those who are considering buying into the operational parts of the railway should think about it very carefully. The Government may be guaranteeing them future streams of income, but prospective buyers should recall what happened to the rolling stock manufacturers: they invested heavily, only to be dumped by the Government. The work force were dumped by the Government and the workers' Christmas present this year will be unemployment.
This summer, I tried to stick to my resolution to boycott all things French as a protest against French nuclear tests. However, I was stranded for a night in Strasbourg while on my way to a family holiday in Switzerland. I had not visited Strasbourg before. It is a beautiful city and it is easy to travel around on the magnificent modern tram system, which was opened recently. The trams were built in York in my constituency—it is written on the side of the trams. An efficient factory in York beat off the French competition and won the contract. However, when the tram system in Strasbourg is expanded, the new trams will not be built in my constituency because the factory will no longer be there. That is one result of the Government's policy.
The Government have invested a little in new rolling stock: they let a contract to the German company Siemens. If the contract had been let to a British company, the jobs would have stayed in this country and we would have retained the ability to manufacture trains in this country, but the Government have thrown away that chance.
If rail privatisation were such a rip-roaring success, the Government would be publicising it; instead, they are complaining about leaks. Confidential advice given to Ministers is that rail privatisation is a disaster; it is not working. So, instead of encouraging openness, the Government have shrouded the privatisation process in secrecy.
The answer to a parliamentary question asked by me appears in Hansard of 9 February 1995. I asked the Minister for Railways and Roads, who is now in the Chamber, to publish the Hesketh report into BR signalling, but he refused to do so. I congratulate the Transport Select Committee on its persistence in using its powers to call for documents to be provided and, as a result, a copy of the Hesketh report has come into the public domain.
Hesketh was commissioned to conduct a study of the signalling system throughout the British Rail network following the Clapham rail crash and to implement recommendation No. 49 of Sir Anthony Hidden's report, which stated:
BR shall develop an adequate system of allocating priority to projects to ensure that safety standards are not compromised by delay".
The Hesketh report on signalling listed 95 renewal schemes that were required around the country in order of priority and set a "latest start date" for each of those schemes. Some 13 schemes, estimated to cost about £170 million, had "latest start dates" in 1993, 1994 or 1995.
The Hesketh report is the bible for signal engineers and its importance was reiterated by John Edmonds, chief executive of Railtrack, in his evidence to the Transport Select Committee. He described the Hesketh report as "the base document" from which signal engineers worked. He went on to state:
We are spending at a level which entirely fits the sequence which Hesketh originally proposed".
Mr. Edmonds was clearly trying to give members of the Committee the impression that they did not need to worry about the Hesketh report because the work was going ahead. However, he misled the Committee. If one compares the detailed recommendations in the Hesketh report with the Minister's answer to a parliamentary question that I asked on 26 April, one finds that three quarters of Hesketh's top 13 schemes, which should have been started this year, are running behind schedule or have simply been shelved altogether by the Government.
I shall give the House an example. The Hidden report into the Clapham crash said:
British Rail shall …ensure that all working drawings are complete and an accurate representation of the system to be worked on".
In the report on the Kingmoor relay room in Carlisle, Hesketh says:
Wiring diagrams have inconsistencies with the site installation".
He continues:
There is high risk present at this site and work should be undertaken quickly to renew the equipment in this area".
Hesketh laid down a later start date of 1994 on safety grounds. The Minister stated in his answer:
The programme for this project is currently under review."—[Official Report, 26 April 1995: Vol. 1686, c. 592.]
Location by location, page after page, the Hesketh report reveals glaring faults with signalling systems. Slade lane relay room in Manchester is so corroded that there is a risk to internal equipment. The Longsite No. 1 relay room in Manchester is operated with second-hand spares from Crewe. In regard to the Brewery Sidings signal box in Manchester—vintage 1894—Hesketh says:
The cable route is destroyed at a number of sites … Cables have … core to core contacts.


That scheme is running two years behind the Hesketh timetable. Signal boxes in Scotland at Grangemouth and Carmuirs East junctions have to have their mechanical switch diamonds cooled with continuous water spray during hot weather to stop them bursting into flames. According to Hesketh, signal boxes at Stratford in east London, Forest Gate and Goodmayes have a high risk of fire.
The Secretary of State sweeps aside the recommendation in Sir Anthony Hidden's report on the Clapham crash cash that
BR shall ensure that the organisational framework exists to prevent commercial considerations of a business-led railway from compromising safety.
He says that we need not worry about that, because the railway inspectorate will oversee what Railtrack does when it is privatised. That is an admission that Railtrack needs policing. It sadly and dangerously misses the point that a safe railway must have safety as the core concern of every structure and every worker in every rail company and rail business.
There is a conflict of interest between shareholders and safety. The Government have not resolved that contradiction and conflict. It is right to highlight the danger that rail privatisation causes. We look with interest at the new annual report of the railway inspectorate to see whether, as early figures show, there has been an increase in the number of accidents on the railway since Railtrack took over responsibility.

Mr. Henry McLeish: At the Tory conference in Blackpool, the Prime Minister made a 31-page speech. Interestingly, he did not mention the railways once. I wonder why. It is clear to us that the country shares our view that rail privatisation is a monumentally stupid idea. Debates such as this have a useful purpose as they allow us to visit some reality on Conservative Members who are now outwith any suggestion of common sense and any suggestion of what passengers and the public want. They now seem destined to implement ideology regardless of the damage and distortion to our great rail network. No one should be surprised by that, because they are trying to create an artificial market where none exists.
We are delighted that the Government were animated about the leaked documents, but we take no pleasure in quoting one of the key safety experts in Railtrack, Mr. Rose, suggesting that it would take 18 months for Railtrack to be safety competent. What is the Government's response? They say that that is scaremongering. What is Railtrack's response? It is typically complacent and also says that that is scaremongering.
The Government should accept that the documents come from the heart of the industry and not from Labour party headquarters. The industry is telling the Government that it is a crazy idea. Morale is at rock bottom, there are major problems and there is a chronic lack of investment; despite all that, the Government are not listening.

Mr. Luff: On the subject of leaked documents, does that mean that the hon. Gentleman agrees with the hon.

Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) who says in his article in Rail magazine that leaked documents are welcome? Does that mean that it is now official Labour party policy to encourage civil servants to breach the Official Secrets Act 1911?

Mr. McLeish: That intervention suggests that I should not give way much more during the rest of my speech.
The Government want to deflect attention from what they are doing, so we are constantly asked what Labour would do. The real issue is: what are the Government doing to the rail network now? That is the subject that I want to address.

Mr. Tyler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McLeish: I shall give way in a few minutes when I have made some progress.
We are looking at a set of Ministers—aided and abetted by Sir Robert Horton of Railtrack—who are guilty on a number of counts. The first is grotesque misuse of taxpayers' money. By any objective analysis, something like £1 billion has been spent on the privatisation process at a time when the industry is suffering from chronic under-investment. That simply cannot be right.
Secondly, we are witnessing the mindless destruction of the rail network. The rail network works, but it is quite clear from the bureaucratic mess that has been created that it simply will not work next year. It may work the year after because, by then, we shall have a Government committed to the railways rather than to the ideology of privatising them.
Thirdly, the Government are unique in generating an unparalleled hostility to any privatisation issue. The City is negative, sentiment is weak, passengers are angry, the public is dismayed and even among Conservative supporters every opinion poll suggests that they share our view. It is simply a daft idea.
One would have thought that, faced with that, there might be some remorse at the damage being done—not at all. This evening, we witnessed the typical view that privatisation will work again because—it is alleged—it has worked in the past. That is the triumph of hope over reality.
The most punishing charge that could be levelled at the Government is that they are driving passengers towards the edge of a nightmare. In the early days of rail privatisation, the Government said that there would be network benefits. How can there be network benefits when they propose to dismember an organisation into 94 pieces and then suggest that it will all mysteriously hang together? They said that through ticketing was fine and that passengers would have the same services as before—that ScotRail would compete with South West Trains. That is a wonderful illustration of a ludicrous system. At the end of the day, the Government will not accept the premise that only passengers will suffer.
Every day, our great rail industry is subjected, in both quality and tabloid press, to ridicule through no fault of its own but through the sheer stupidity and stubbornness of Ministers.

Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way and I note his formidable argument for retaining a national rail network. He said that he believes that the public have a right to know, and I agree with that too. Will he give the House an explicit assurance that if


the Labour party is in a position to do so and if Railtrack is sold before the general election, a Labour Government or Labour minority Government will immediately take steps to bring Railtrack under public control and public ownership again under a 51 per cent.-plus majority shareholding? The House is entitled to know the answer.

Mr. McLeish: I am delighted to repeat that Labour wants a publicly owned, publicly accountable and publicly controlled railway.
We heard earlier all about the debacle with children and passengers overloading on coaches, but I am informed—sadly, this is another leak which may upset the Government, but the next part will cheer them up—that Devon county council was informed in October 1994 of what was to happen. It was given the new pricing structure and told the problems, but—surprisingly—did nothing about it.
The issue tonight, however, is the railways. There is now a crisis at the heart of our national rail network; the tragedy is that it need not have happened. We need investment, and a new way forward. Other European countries have a sensible approach that seeks to attract private capital, but also seeks a genuine partnership rather than espousing the ideological claptrap that we hear from the Government.
Let us recap briefly. I am sure that Conservative Members will enjoy being reminded of the summer of discontent that they have created on the railways. We have heard a great deal about safety. It is massively complacent to suggest that safety standards cannot be improved. I accept that rail is one of the safest methods of travel, but that does not mean that there are no risks. When a network is dismembered, there is every opportunity for mistakes to be made—and Railtrack, although charged with ensuring safety, is more interested in its flotation. I challenge Sir Robert Horton to state the real priorities of his chairmanship.
Then there is the timetable debacle. The original timetable contained more than 2,000 pages, but that was not enough: a supplement was needed, then another, and I gather that there is to be a fourth. Indeed, I believe that the timetable is so bad that it may be reprinted, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). Must the public pay again? Will the debacle for which Railtrack is responsible necessitate another contribution from the taxpayer?
A further debacle involving the west coast main line would be funny, if people, industries and routes were not being harmed by the Government's incompetence. The line is desperate for finance. The Secretary of State announced today that £7 million had been gathered in from Europe. What is it for? It is simply to finance more feasibility studies. It seems that a £1 billion project is lying in tatters. [Interruption.] Ministers are saying, from a sedentary position, that that is not the case. I challenge them to tell me when work on the line will start—not the resignalling work, but the full reconstruction of the west coast main line.

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): In 1996.

Mr. McLeish: I do not know whether the work will be done early or late in 1996; nevertheless, progress has been made, and I will not challenge the Minister further.
The simple fact is that Ministers will not say how much money they have. They must say where the money is coming from. From what we have heard, it seems that not one penny—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) would sit quietly for a while, he would probably add to his knowledge.
Not one penny is coming from the private sector. Track access charges will support part of the project. The Government are trying to get £200 million from Europe; the trans-European networks money does not stretch to that. We shall wait with interest following the Minister's commitment to a 1996 start to the project.
The Secretary of State should be embarrassed about two other issues—or, rather, not necessarily the current Secretary of State, but his predecessor. Although 250 applications were received for a job on the Rail Users Consultative Committee, the Minister for Railways and Roads apparently suggested that none of the applicants was suitable. The Government then went on a spree to find a "placeperson". Will the Minister tell us whether the search has been successful? Are we to have a "yes-person" in the post? Obviously, the Government will be happy to see the departure of the present incumbent, who is retiring; but I sincerely hope that this will not be a manipulated quango job. If it is, it is another subject that the Nolan committee should investigate at an early stage.
The Secretary of State will probably know that his predecessor started a project called "the informed traveller". The essential aim was to retain network benefits in the crazy system of the privatised rail network. Are the Government still committed to that project? If they are, when benefits are likely to accrue—at least in directions from the Secretary of State?
The Government's key defence, advanced from both the Front and the Back Benches, is, "Do not worry about this privatisation; it is just like what happened with British Airways." That myth should be buried once and for all. Let us imagine that British Airways had been privatised in the same way as British Rail. We have 25 train operating companies with British Rail, so we should have had 25 aeroplane operating companies. Let us take the Manchester to London route, and franchise it separately; let us do the same with the Glasgow to London route. The Ministers smile, but that gives the lie to claims that this privatisation is anything like that of British Airways.
We have ROSCOs—rolling stock leasing companies—in the rail network; would we have had PLESCOs, or plane leasing companies, in British Airways, under Lord King? Would 737s, 757s, 767s and 777s be owned by separate companies and leased out? Of course not.
British Airways has one of the best maintenance services in the country. Throughout the country, it employs key people to provide services. In the scenario that I have described, it would not own anything. It sub-contracts, but that is not the same as a system of individual owners.
The key issue, however, is this: if British Airways had been offered a £2 billion subsidy in perpetuity, that would be similar to what the railways are getting. How can a service be privatised when there is a £2 billion subsidy committing Governments in 2010, 2020 or 2030? That is ridiculous. As if the financial position were not bad enough, to add insult to taxpayers' injury, that £2 billion is to be topped up with an extra £600 million once the railways are in the private sector.
I am a Scot; I am canny with money; I am a moderate; and I have a lot of common sense. But I must tell people at the next election that the privatised railway will cost them £2.6 billion for ever. When is a privatisation not a privatisation? I suggest that this is one privatisation too many. It does not stand up to any critical analysis or objective criteria.
The Government know that the privatisation is not working. We hoped that the new Secretary of State would have had his honeymoon, bedded into the job and then realised that his predecessors had whipped up some support for a crazy idea. I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will now wish to back off from an idea that is causing immense damage to the fabric of industry and destroying morale. It is not likely to generate a penny of the extra private investment that we hear about, and, ultimately, will probably deprive the industry of any network benefits.
If the Government do not listen, they must suffer the consequences at the next election. I can tell Conservative Members with hard-pressed commuter seats where train dependency is high that we will campaign in those seats, and the smiles will be taken off their faces if the shambles that we envisage comes to pass. If they do not build the railways for the future, Labour will put them back together when we take power—as quickly as possible.

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): If the debate has proved nothing else, it has at least proved that King Canute is alive and kicking in Oldham, West. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has convinced himself that if he repeats the claims that rail privatisation will not happen, his empty words can stop it happening. He is oblivious to the water that is already lapping around his feet—presumably as a result of the leaks that he welcomes so openly. He cannot recognise the irresistible tide that is engulfing him.
Arguably, it is unfair to compare the hon. Gentleman to King Canute—unfair to King Canute, that is. As I recall, it was the foolish courtiers surrounding the king who believed that his words had magical powers. The king commanded the waves to show them their folly. But in the context of rail privatisation, we are dealing with a foolish would-be king. His policy can be described in the words of his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) as a "cobweb of confusion".
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) have both tried unsuccessfully to prise out of the hon. Members for Oldham, West and for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) precisely what the policy enunciated at their conference really means. Why have both of them refused to clarify the old Labour commitment to nationalisation which new Labour has made? That commitment is to renationalise the railways. Have they realised, for instance, that a commitment to renationalise makes their claim that they can stop the privatisation happening look rather more ludicrous than it does in any event? Or has the shadow Chancellor calculated that the cost of implementing the policy cannot be funded out of "endogenous growth"? Or

have they recognised that there is at least a slight inconsistency between this new policy and Labour's much vaunted abandonment of clause IV about a year ago?
The hon. Member for Oldham, West sought to cross swords with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State over the comparison that my right hon. Friend drew between British Airways and British Rail. Not knowing when he was beaten, the hon. Member for Fife, Central returned later to the attack. Both of them are misleading themselves.
A proper comparison between British Rail and the British airline industry would not look at British Airways on its own and ask how it would be if it had been broken up into 90 separate parts. The starting point with rail is an industry which has, in all its aspects, been owned by the public sector since the folly of nationalisation by the post-war Labour Government. The comparison would have to be with one publicly owned corporation owning British Airways, Virgin, British Midland, Air UK and all the other operators, plus all the airports and probably control of air traffic control services as well. That would be a true comparison.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central seems to have been labouring under the misapprehension that British Airways owns all its aircraft. If he checks, he will find that a large part of British Airways' fleet is leased, just as happens throughout the industry internationally. It is a fact, as my right hon. Friend tried to explain to Opposition Front Benchers, that with the airlines—here I draw comparisons, as I have before, with road passenger transport and road haulage—the ownership of the infrastructure over which services are run is not the same as ownership of those who operate services on the structure or who provide for maintaining it.

Mr. McLeish: Why, then, was British Airways not broken up into 25 internal United Kingdom sections? [HON. MEMBERS: "You have just heard why."] I am not talking about the British airline industry. There is a big difference between the Minister's point and what some Conservative Back Benchers were saying earlier.

Mr. Watts: No, there is no difference. With the airline industry we did not start from as bad a position as with the railways, where every aspect of service operation and infrastructure was contained in one monolithic structure. In the airline industry there was already separate ownership of the infrastructure and of operations. I therefore invite the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the seminar that I have just given him.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West also revealed once again his complete misunderstanding of the funding of the railways, pre-privatisation and post-privatisation. If he and his hon. Friend will look at the figures, they will see that, in the period before we started on the restructuring and privatisation of rail, Government support for the industry was broadly £1.5 billion a year; and they will see, in the same Transport Select Committee report from which they plucked out the £700 million additional cost figure, that Committee's judgment that in 1997, when privatisation will be complete, the amount of taxpayers' support needed will be broadly £1.5 billion a year.
They are confused about the intervening years because, this year and next, the figures that appear in the public expenditure statements include a line that deals with privatisation effects: a broad estimate and a composite


estimate of the receipts from the sales of the businesses which, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has explained, are now gathering pace.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West also confused himself about the value of assets at replacement prices in Railtrack and the stock market valuation of the company. Of course there will be no relationship between the stock market valuation of the company when it is floated next spring and the way in which track access charges are calculated and approved by the rail regulator.

Mr. Dalyell: What evidence does the Minister have for saying that sales are gathering pace?

Mr. Watts: My right hon. Friend said earlier that businesses with a turnover of about £4 billion are now on the market, some of them sold—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Oldham, West has an inaccurate list of what has been sold. He mentioned heavy maintenance depots, but omitted the recent sale of On Board Services.

Mr. Meacher: Wow!

Mr. Watts: The hon. Gentleman sneers, but the business ranks third in this country's catering industry in terms of the number of pre-prepared meals that it serves every day—so it is not chickenfeed—[Laughter.] In fact, it is good Minister feed, as the photographs in the Evening Standard of that day showed. However, I understand why the hon. Gentleman wants to deflect attention from his misunderstanding of track access charges.
The relevance of replacement values to calculating track access charges is that the regulator has set charges at a level that will ensure that Railtrack has the funds of about £600 million a year which it needs to spend to maintain and improve the system. But the stock market valuation has no relevance whatever to the level of track access charges. Because of the increased efficiency that will come from the private sector operation of Railtrack, track access charges are falling, by 8 per cent. in real terms immediately, and thereafter by 2 per cent. below the retail prices index for the next five years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) reminded the House that the passenger service requirement introduces a guarantee of service levels for the first time ever. The publicly owned and accountable railway to which Opposition Front Benchers are so attracted has never given such guarantees. In fact, the publicly owned and accountable railway has the power, which it sometimes exercises, to reduce services to the point at which any further cut in services would mean that they disappeared altogether. So that is the sort of guarantee that passengers have with the structure that Opposition Members find so attractive.
I must tell the hon. Member for North Cornwall, moreover, that, in the publicly owned and accountable railway, management have the power to increase fares by as much as 56 per cent. What is the benefit of public ownership and accountability when that is what passengers may have to face? By contrast, the fares regime announced by the franchising director provides greater protection for passengers than they have ever enjoyed in the past.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) referred correctly to the stultifying effect of nationalisation. Privatisation of the railways will be the trigger for the renaissance of the railway industry, to

which Opposition Members pay lip service but which they are not prepared to deliver. My hon. Friend rightly castigated the hon. Member for Oldham, West and others for their irresponsible and mischievous scaremongering over safety. The reality is that the safety regime that is introduced with the restructuring and privatisation of the railways is much more rigorous than the blanket safety authorisation covering the whole of British Rail, under which the nationalised railway has operated.
Under the new regime, every individual company and unit operating within the railway industry must satisfy, first, Railtrack and, ultimately, the Health and Safety Executive that it is competent to manage safety on the railway. That is a much higher requirement than has ever existed before, and it is also an open regime which involves people broadly across the railway industry, including the trade unions, which, of course, have valuable expertise and views to express on safety measures. It is part of that open regime that information about the causes of accidents and the way in which they might be avoided in the future must be disseminated widely if we are to ensure the highest possible standards.
I am conscious of the time, as no doubt you are, Madam Speaker; therefore I do not have time, sadly, to respond to all the other interesting and valuable points made by my right hon. and hon. Friends or to continue rebutting all the fallacies on which the arguments of Opposition Members were based. It must be clear, even to King Canute sitting opposite, that there is now an irresistible momentum to privatisation. If the hon. Member for Oldham, West does not recognise that, he will be swept away as the tide continues to come in.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 288.

Division No. 217]
[7.01 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Byers, Stephen


Ainger, Nick
Caborn, Richard


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Callaghan, Jim


Allen, Graham
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Alton, David
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Campbell-Savours, D N


Armstrong, Hilary
Cann, Jamie


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)


Ashton, Joe
Chisholm, Malcolm


Austin-Walker, John
Church, Judith


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clapham, Michael


Barnes, Harry
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Barron, Kevin
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Battle, John
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Bayley, Hugh
Clelland, David


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Coffey, Ann


Bell, Stuart
Cohen, Harry


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Bennett, Andrew F
Corbett, Robin


Bernningham, Gerald
Corbyn, Jeremy


Berry, Roger
Corston, Jean


Betts, Clive
Cousins, Jim


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Cox, Tom


Boateng, Paul
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bradley, Keith
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Dafis, Cynog


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Dalyell, Tam






Darling, Alistair
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Khabra, Piara S


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kirkwood, Archy


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Denham, John
Lewis, Terry


Dewar, Donald
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Dixon, Don
Litherland, Robert


Dobson, Frank
Livingstone, Ken


Donohoe, Brian H
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dowd, Jim
Llwyd, Elfyn


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Loyden, Eddie


Eagle, Ms Angela
Lynne, Ms Liz


Eastham, Ken
McAllion, John


Etherington, Bill
McAvoy, Thomas


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McCartney, Ian


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McCartney, Robert


Fatchett, Derek
McFall, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McKelvey, William


Fisher, Mark
Mackinlay, Andrew


Flynn, Paul
McLeish, Henry


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McMaster, Gordon


Foster, Don (Bath)
McNamara, Kevin


Foulkes, George
MacShane, Denis


Fraser, John
Madden, Max


Fyfe, Maria
Maddock, Diana


Galloway, George
Mahon, Alice


Garrett, John
Mandelson, Peter


Gerrard, Neil
Marek, Dr John


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Godsiff, Roger
Martlew, Eric


Golding, Mrs Llin
Maxton, John


Graham, Thomas
Meacher, Michael


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Michael, Alun


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Grocott, Bruce
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Gunnell, John
Milburn, Alan


Hain, Peter
Miller, Andrew


Hall, Mike
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Hanson, David
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Harman, Ms Harriet
Morgan, Rhodri


Harvey, Nick
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Henderson, Doug
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Heppell, John
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Mudie, George


Hinchliffe, David
Mullin, Chris


Hodge, Margaret
Murphy, Paul


Hoey, Kate
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Home Robertson, John
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hood, Jimmy
Olner, Bill


Hoon, Geoffrey
O'Neill, Martin


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Parry, Robert


Hoyle, Doug
Pearson, Ian


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Pickthall, Colin


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hutton, John
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Illsley, Eric
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Ingram, Adam
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Purchase, Ken


Janner, Greville
Quin, Ms Joyce


Johnston, Sir Russell
Radice, Giles


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Redmond, Martin


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rendel, David


Jowell, Tessa
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Keen, Alan
Rogers, Allan


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Rooker, Jeff





Rooney, Terry
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Timms, Stephen


Ruddock, Joan
Tipping, Paddy


Sedgemore, Brian
Touhig, Don


Sheerman, Barry
Turner, Dennis


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Tyler, Paul


Short, Clare
Vaz, Keith


Simpson, Alan
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Skinner, Dennis
Wallace, James


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Walley, Joan


Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Welsh, Andrew


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wicks, Malcolm


Snape, Peter
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)



Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Soley, Clive
Wilson, Brian


Spearing, Nigel
Winnick, David


Spellar, John
Wise, Audrey


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Worthington, Tony


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Wray, Jimmy


Stevenson, George
Wright, Dr Tony


Stott, Roger
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Strang, Dr. Gavin



Straw, Jack
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Mr. Joe Benton and Mr. John Cummings.


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Chapman, Sydney


Alexander, Richard
Churchill, Mr


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Clappison, James


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Amess, David
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Ancram, Michael
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Arbuthnot, James
Coe, Sebastian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Congdon, David


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Conway, Derek


Ashby, David
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Couchman, James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cran, James


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bates, Michael
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Batiste, Spencer
Day, Stephen


Bellingham, Henry
Devlin, Tim


Bendall, Vivian
Dicks, Terry


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dover, Den


Booth, Hartley
Duncan, Alan


Boswell, Tim
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dunn, Bob


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Bowis, John
Elletson, Harold


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bright, Sir Graham
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Evennett, David


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Faber, David


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fabricant, Michael


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Budgen, Nicholas
Reld, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Burns, Simon
Fishburn, Dudley


Burt, Alistair
Forman, Nigel


Butcher, John
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Butler, Peter
Forth, Eric


Butterfill, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Carrington, Matthew
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Carttiss, Michael
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Cash, William
French, Douglas






Fry, Sir Peter
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Gale, Roger
Legg, Barry


Gallie, Phil
Leigh, Edward


Gardiner, Sir George
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Garnier, Edward
Lidington, David


Gill, Christopher
Lightbown, David


Gillan, Cheryl
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Lord, Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Luff, Peter


Gorst, Sir John
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
MacKay, Andrew


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
McLoughlin, Patrick


Hague, William
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Madel, Sir David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Major, Rt Hon John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Malone, Gerald


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Mans, Keith


Hannam, Sir John
Marland, Paul


Hargreaves, Andrew
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Hawkins, Nick
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hawksley, Warren
Mates, Michael


Hayes, Jerry
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Heald, Oliver
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Merchant, Piers


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Mills, Iain


Hendry, Charles
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Moate, Sir Roger


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Horam, John
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Neubert, Sir Michael


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Norris, Steve


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hunter, Andrew
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Ottaway, Richard


Jack, Michael
Page, Richard


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Paice, James


Jenkin, Bernard
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Jessel, Toby
Patten, Rt Hon John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Pawsey, James


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Pickles, Eric


King, Rt Hon Tom
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Powell, William (Corby)


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Rathbone, Tim


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Knox, Sir David
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Richards, Rod


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Robathan, Andrew





Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Thomason, Roy


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Thurnham, Peter


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Townsend, Cyril D (Baxl'yh'th)


Sackville, Tom
Tracey, Richard


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Tredinnick, David


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Trend, Michael


Shaw, David (Dover)
Trotter, Neville


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Viggers, Peter


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Shersby, Sir Michael
Walden, George


Sims, Roger
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Waller, Gary


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Ward, John


Soames, Nicholas
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Waterson, Nigel


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Watts, John


Spink, Dr Robert
Wells, Bowen


Spring, Richard
Whitney, Ray


Sproat, Iain
Whittingdale, John


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Widdecombe, Ann


Steen, Anthony
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Stephen, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Stern, Michael
Wilshire, David


Stewart, Allan
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Streeter, Gary
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Sumberg, David
Wolfson, Mark


Sweeney, Walter
Wood, Timothy


Sykes, John
Yeo, Tim


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, Ian (Esher)



Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Mr. David Willetts and Mr. Roger Knapman.


Temple-Morris, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House believes that privatisation of the railways will bring better services to passengers, as has happened with previous privatisations, such as British Airways and British Airports Authority; contrasts this with the Opposition's commitment to renationalise the railways; welcomes the announcement that Railtrack will be floated next Spring, allowing access to private capital and opportunities for investors; and further welcomes the progress that has already been made on privatisation, which will lead to a new era for passengers, with fares and services protected for the first time.

National Blood Service

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I beg to move,
That this House pays tribute to the nation's two million blood donors, on whose goodwill and generosity the National Blood Service and National Health Service depend; congratulates blood service staff in the regional blood transfusion centres for maintaining a high quality service despite the continuing uncertainty surrounding the service; deplores the proposal to close testing and/or processing facilities at Liverpool, Lancaster, Oxford, Brentwood and Plymouth blood centres in the absence of any conclusive evidence that closure will lead to improvements in the quality of service to people living in those areas; condemns the National Blood Authority for pre-empting the Secretary of State's decision on the future of the National Blood Service by pushing ahead with its proposed re-organisation before any final announcement; and calls on the Secretary of State to visit each threatened centre to hear at first hand the concerns of donors and staff and take account of their representations before finalising his decision about the future organisation of the blood service.
It is appropriate to begin on the point that is not held in contention between ourselves and the Government. I pay tribute to the 2 million people, our fellow citizens, who every year give blood voluntarily and generously, often at their own expense and inconvenience. They do so because they care about the health of other people—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot hear a word that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) is saying.

Mr. Brown: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was surprised to see the Secretary of State for Health heckling me from behind your Chair. I note that he has left the business end of the debate in the hands of his very capable deputy, the Minister for Health. It is appropriate—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Get on with it.

Mr. Brown: It is always such a pleasure to be urged on by the hon. Lady, who seems to have a special and, dare I say it, unique affection for listening to me speak from the Dispatch Box. I welcome her to this debate.
The blood service is a central part of the national health service. It is a symbol of the enduring philosophical truth that lies behind a health service which is comprehensive, unified, publicly owned, publicly accountable and free at the point of need—the principle that we can achieve more by acting together than if we act alone.
There are currently 15 English regional blood transfusion centres. Each centre carries out blood collection, testing, processing, delivery and specialist services such as research and development. In 1993, the National Blood Authority was set up to oversee the administration of the blood service. It was instructed to carry out a review of the service to maximise efficiency and to minimise waste and inefficiency. There is nothing wrong with that intention. The annual budget of the blood service is about £130 million and it is important that public money is wisely spent.
As part of the review, the National Blood Authority commissioned several private firms of management consultants to offer advice on possible reorganisation—advice which has cost the taxpayer £1.25 million. It is interesting to note that management consultants employed by Government Departments in the past three years have cost on average £500 million per year. It is even more revealing to note that, according to a report from the Cabinet office efficiency unit in August 1994, the savings achieved by those management consultants amount to an average of £12.2 million per year. A total of £500 million pounds spent on achieving savings of £12.2 million is not a ringing endorsement of those management consultants, nor of the Ministers responsible for hiring them.
However, let us be generous and give the consultants the benefit of the doubt, at least for the purposes of the debate. Perhaps the advice offered to the National Blood Authority was of a higher quality than the other advice that management consultants offer to Departments and quangos. Let us look at the advice that the consultants, Bain and Co., provided in exchange for more than £1 million of public money.
Bain and Co. suggested a streamlining of donor sessions, proposing that it should take 9.5 minutes to take a unit of blood. Clearly the consultants were unaware that the current regulations require almost double that time—17.5 minutes—to be taken. They also proposed to end smaller "inefficient" sessions yielding fewer than 90 donations per day, despite the fact that such sessions account for 30 per cent. of all donations.
Next, the consultants proposed using fewer units of blood for operations. That is the sort of recommendation that one would expect from management consultants. According to Bain and Co., such a measure would reduce demand for blood by 23 per cent. The idea is that if we give people less blood the demand will fall. But it seems rather a dangerous proposition. Last Friday the British Medical Journal contained advice contradicting that of the consultants. Leading haematologists suggested that even current practices leave critically ill patients short of blood. So there is hardly a case for reducing the amount of blood given.
Bain and Co. also suggested that money could be saved by leaving blood at room temperature for 24 hours before refrigeration. I am sure that it could, but there is a danger that blood products could be infected by bacteria and become unsuitable for use.
The consultants also proposed—this is the heart of the issue that we are debating—that five of the 15 regional transfusion centres should be closed and the blood service restructured into three administrative zones. That is the proposal which has proved so universally unpopular with clinicians, staff and donors. It means that the public will be required to travel further to larger, more impersonal donation sessions, with a consequent fall in donations.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): It is rather a shame that the debate has kicked off to a false start, with the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the centres are to close. It has been suggested that certain processing functions will be moved away from them, but donors will not have to travel further. The centres will still be available for the donation of blood, so what the hon. Gentleman has said is simply not true.

Mr. Brown: The proposals are based on what is called option D of the Bain report, which recommends full


closure of five or six centres. Gary Austin, the designated chief executive of the midlands and south-western zone, has written to representatives of the Oxford blood centre about the "closure" of that centre. That is his word, and if the Minister wishes to dispute it his quarrel is with Gary Austin, not with me.

Mr. Andrew Smith: Given the scale of public and donor opposition to the closure proposals—Oxfordshire has produced the county's biggest ever petition—and given the scale of clinical and consultant concern, with more than 100 clinicians, including world-leading heart surgeons, having signed a statement opposing closure and expressing concern about the effects of the withdrawal of the testing and processing functions, is it not time that the National Blood Authority and the Government took notice and acted to keep the centres, including their testing and processing functions, open?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right. A hundred clinicians say the same as I have said. The Minister alone denies it.

Mr. Malone: Nonsense.

Mr. Brown: People outside following the debate will make up their own minds whose word is to be relied upon, and I shall have something to say later about the reliability of Ministers.

Ms Angela Eagle: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the confusion about language arises from the National Blood Authority itself? Initially, in its shoddy consultation document, it announced closure. Then it started to back-track. Those of us who have tried to pin the authority down to some reasonable proposals are amazed at the way in which it keeps shifting the meaning of language and deliberately confusing the debate, while at the same time implementing the proposals which are so strongly opposed throughout the country.

Mr. Brown: I shall say something later about the way in which the proposals are being implemented, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. She speaks for the country, while the Minister will have difficulty being treated with respect by those who are following the debate. I shall have something to say about statements by Ministers, too.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the Labour party wants to take the advice of clinicians only on some occasions? For instance, it entirely ignores the advice of GP fundholders on its policy. Why is it not more consistent?

Mr. Brown: I am being lured slightly away from the main thrust of the debate, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that in Fundholding magazine, a periodical specifically for GP fundholders, 75 per cent. of the fundholders polled said that they opposed fundholding. So we are listening to the majority of clinicians. We are more than happy to take advice, as the hon. Gentleman urges. Having satisfied him completely, I shall continue with my speech.
The second implication of the proposals for the blood service is that specialist centres of excellence will be lost. Thirdly, some specialist services, such as transplant technology and cancer treatment research, will be

threatened. Above all, we believe that the review has underestimated the future growth in demand for blood and overestimated the excess capacity in the service.
There is a real risk that future supplies of blood to national health service hospitals may be inadequate. What the review calls an excess the service calls a safety margin, to deal with events such as war, or the purchase of Tuta bags. [Interruption.] The Minister seems surprised that I refer to wars, but he should think back to the Falklands conflict and the Gulf war. We were all grateful that masses of blood products were not needed, but they might have been.

Mr. Malone: That was not the reason for my incredulity. The suggestion that the problem experienced with Tuta bags can be compared with war is absurd. The hon. Gentleman does himself no credit by making such a comparison.

Mr. Brown: The Minister has missed the point. Both examples represent events which put pressure on the supply of blood products. It is perfectly obvious to most people following the debate that both events, although quite different in their nature, would put pressure on short-term supplies of blood products. That is why it is necessary to have a surplus. It is far better to have a surplus than a deficit.
The proposals are paralleled by other initiatives which have met with considerable opposition. The first, of course, is the sale of blood products—and the confidence of the House in the Conservative party's reform agenda for the blood service is unlikely to have been shored up by the answers that have been given to the House. On 12 December 1994, in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health said:
Blood collected by the national blood service is for the needs of the national health service not for sale or export."—[Official Report, 12 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 473.]
Given that assurance, many of us were concerned to learn that the National Blood Authority does sell blood to the private sector and does sell blood products overseas. These transactions were said to be worth about £5 million a year. More concern was caused by newspaper reports suggesting that the NBA was considering increasing the volume of sales abroad to around £14 million per annum. That may well be standard practice for a private profit-driven firm in a competitive market, but it surely has no place in an ethically based public service, the overriding purpose of which is to meet the needs of patients. The proposal also does not go down well with donors.

Mr. Eric Pickles: The blood products sold—in particular, factor VIII—are surplus to requirements in Britain, they are provided at cost and they are provided to help people who are ill. What is wrong with helping people in that way? Surely the hon. Gentleman does not want to stop helping people who need factor VIII just because they are not English. Is that not taking xenophobia a stage too far?

Mr. Brown: I am slightly surprised to be accused of xenophobia by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) and his party. I followed with some interest the speech of the Secretary of State for Defence at the Conservative party conference. Perhaps the hon.


Gentleman would like to have a word with his right hon. Friend before he starts throwing around charges of xenophobia.
The point I am making is that our fellow citizens give blood freely and altruistically as a public service. They do not give blood to have it treated as a tradeable commodity. The hon. Gentleman implied that all the blood products that are sold are surplus, whereas in fact that is not the case. Blood products are now being treated as a tradeable commodity to generate income for the authority. It is not a question of selling off the surplus.

Mr. David Alton: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). People who give blood do so altruistically and generously and because they want to give their blood for humanitarian reasons. What they find offensive is that they are not even told when their blood is sold on to second and third agencies who may well make money out of the transactions.

Mr. Brown: I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman, and I believe that the further the National Blood Authority goes down that route, the more it will put in jeopardy the altruism of those providing blood.
In a survey conducted by the NBA, donors were asked whether they
support the sale of surplus plasma derivatives for countries in the European Community provided the monies raised offset running costs to the National Blood Service".
I submit that it would be difficult to write the question in such a way as to make it more likely that the answer received would be yes. Nevertheless, more than 8 per cent. of donors who responded were opposed to the idea of selling surplus blood products in the very narrow circumstances outlined in the question.

Mr. Malone: rose—

Mr. Brown: No doubt the Minister will now say that that is a wholesale endorsement of the selling of blood products.

Mr. Malone: No, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be honest with the House. He should make the point that if the surplus blood products were not sold and the cash brought back into the NHS, the products would be destroyed. Does he think that donors would prefer to see part of what they have given destroyed rather than given to patients, wherever else they may be? That is an extraordinary suggestion.

Mr. Brown: First, the products are not given—they are sold. Secondly, they do not go to patients wherever they may be but are sold at market rates in places such as Turkey.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the price lists in Turkish publications which appear to show that middlemen are making massive profits out of the sale of blood products bought from the National Blood Authority?

Mr. Brown: I was aware of the general market in Turkey, although I was not aware of the price lists or the profit margins of middlemen. No doubt the Minister knows more about the matter than I do.
The point I wanted to make was that if 8 per cent. of donors decided to withhold their gift—and it is a gift—of blood, the effect on national blood stocks would be disastrous. The Government are doing a very dangerous thing in undermining the ethical base of the service.
In addition to the sale of blood and blood products, there is evidence of creeping commercialisation of the service. The removal of the crown emblem from the national blood service logo has met with opposition from donors and blood service staff, and a petition was presented against the plan to the Prime Minister this morning. Why should the crown emblem—the symbol of our country—be removed from something that is supposed to be a public service? What emblem will replace it? Will it be something like the Conservative party torch or an advertisement for Ribena? Who knows?
It was recently revealed that the National Blood Authority is considering plans to allow Ribena and McVitie to provide sponsorship for the service, and it has been suggested that in exchange for that commercial sponsorship access to the database of 1.8 million blood donors could be facilitated so that the poor old blood donors can be targeted with junk mail.
In fairness, I received a letter from Smith Kline Beecham stating that there was never any question of that firm accessing the donor database. Nevertheless, meetings have taken place and surely no one can be in any doubt that commercial involvement puts further pressure on the principle that blood is given freely by altruistic citizens because they care about the health of others.
That brings me to my next point about dangerous cost-cutting. The procurement of Tuta blood bags with faulty and potentially dangerous seals was an ill-thought-out decision made by national blood service chiefs more concerned about cost than about quality. That kind of decision-making undermines people's trust and confidence in the service. Trust and confidence are commodities on which the service relies. They are principles without which the service could not function. The Government's encouragement of commercialisation and cost cutting poses a real threat to the central ethos of the service—that of altruism and public service.
The House should concern itself also with the effect of all this on the morale of staff. The proposals are unpopular, and the uncertainty and confusion which surrounds their implementation has had a damaging effect on staff morale. Resignations and early retirement are the most extreme expressions of disenchantment among staff. Among those who have left the service in recent months are Doctor Hugh Lloyd, from my city of Newcastle; Belinda Phipps, the director of the south London centre at Tooting; Douglas Jinks, chief executive of the Birmingham service; and Doctor Colin Entwistle, head of the Oxford service. The low levels of staff morale are threatening the viability of the service. This summer, Peter Bowells, a laboratory services manager in Oxford, told The Observer:
If more staff were to leave prematurely, it would be very hard to maintain the service.
As well as staff morale, there are concerns about the levels of stock. The national blood service exists to ensure that NHS hospitals have access to all the blood supplies that are needed. Keeping adequate blood stocks is, therefore, a central imperative. But blood stock levels have fallen below the NBA's recommended absolute minimum levels on a number of occasions this year. In


January, stock levels were below the recommended minimum level of 15,000 units on 10 out of 23 recorded days—in other words, 43 per cent. of the time. In June, the picture was equally worrying.
Before I bring my remarks to a conclusion, I want to refer to two constitutional issues which I think should worry the House and should be of concern to every hon Member, regardless of party political affiliation. The points that I want to raise relate directly to the rights of Parliament and the rights of hon. Members of the House of Commons. The NBA's proposed restructuring plans have led to commercialisation, corner-cutting and the alienation of staff and donors. It is my submission that it has also acted outside its authority and has pre-empted parliamentary approval.
Although the NBA proposals were put out for a three-month formal consultation in September 1994, no final decision from the NBA has been presented to Parliament for approval, despite repeated promises from Ministers. That might give us cause to think that the NBA was reconsidering its proposals in the light of the strong opposition from the national blood service staff and the general public, including the donors. Much as we might like to think the best of the NBA, however, the truth is rather far removed from that. The authority has already hired the senior officials—the top brass—for the new zonal administration. It has already filled between 20 and 25 newly created senior posts at a cost to the taxpayer of at least £1.5 million. Those people have been drawing salaries and driving around in company cars for the best part of this year but, it would appear—no doubt the Minister will be able to deal with this point—with no work to do.
The shadow Secretary for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), has referred the matter to the Comptroller and Auditor General for investigation. As parliamentarians, it is clearly right that we should consider carefully the circumstances in which a quango proceeds to make such appointments without having the parliamentary authority that it requires. The matter has not yet been agreed and it should not have proceeded.
That brings me to the second matter, which also ought to concern parliamentarians on both sides of the House, regardless of party affiliation. As well as spending public money without Parliament's approval, the National Blood Authority has issued a gagging clause to its staff which in my view threatens the relationship between Members of Parliament and their constituents. The clause threatens disciplinary action against an employee of the authority for no greater offence than approaching a Member of Parliament. The authority's code states:
Staff must exhaust the procedures laid down in this document",
which would take around 40 days by my reckoning,
before contemplating consulting his or her Member of Parliament or disclosing information to the public or media. Failure to do so could undermine public confidence in the service"—
depending, of course, on what they intend to say to their Member of Parliament—
and may result in disciplinary action being taken.
It is an affront to this House and to every Member of Parliament that a body which is supposedly under parliamentary control can insert in its code a restraint on the rights of citizens to approach their Members of Parliament. It is an affront to this House and it should not

be allowed. It is a direct contravention of the constitutional right of every citizen to approach his or her Member of Parliament. Also, it flouts the guidance on staff relations with the public and the media laid down by the national health service management executive. No doubt the Minister will want to brush that matter to one side, but I do not see how he can easily do so.
We therefore ask hon. Members to join together to pay tribute to the nation's 2 million blood donors, on whose altruism and good will the national health service depends and to congratulate the staff of the regional transfusion centres for maintaining a high quality service despite continuing uncertainty about future reorganisations.
We must also deplore the proposals under consideration for the closure of facilities in five regional centres and must condemn the NBA for pre-empting parliamentary approval for its plans and attempting to gag its staff.
Finally, I call on the Secretary of State to consider carefully the proposals in the light of the overwhelming opposition to them and to reject them as ill conceived, damaging to the service and potentially threatening for the well-being of patients.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'commends the continued support of blood donors, on which the Blood Service is founded and which is at the heart of the National Health Service; and fully recognises the commitment of blood service regional staff and the importance of ensuring that this vital national service continues to improve and develop into an integrated national service, based on high and uniform standards of safety, reliability and efficiency.'.
I start by assuring the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering extremely carefully the proposals that have been put before him. The hon. Gentleman is probably aware of the fact that they were put before the then Secretary of State in early July. My right hon. Friend has been considering them with great care since. Indeed, a number of meetings with the hon. Gentleman's colleagues and others still have to take place before a final decision is taken on this important matter and I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will read with great care the Hansard report of this debate.
Before we enter into detailed debate, let us be clear about the quality of the services that we are discussing. Our blood service is among the world's safest, through the reliability and quality of our donors and the thoroughness of our screening and testing systems. Another system not far from this country in Europe with 1.2 million donations per annum has a high prevalence of HIV—0.129 per thousand. In this country, the figure is much lower at 0.007 per thousand. I draw the attention of the House to that figure because it is a very important one and it underpins the quality of our service.
Last year in England, 2.4 million donations were given through the generosity of our unpaid voluntary donors for the direct benefit of about 800,000 desperately ill patients. The voluntary principle guarantees not only the basic supply, but its quality. In other countries where the voluntary principle does not pertain—in some where it appears to do so it does not in reality as payments are made by a number of means—the quality of blood donated is much worse than in the United Kingdom.
Contamination rates in some countries range from 2.5 times the United Kingdom level to a massive 280 times that level.
The Government clearly understand that the voluntary principle underpins the quality of supply. Our system works and I am pleased to be able to tell the House that it is the Government's firm undertaking and principle in this debate that that principle will remain.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, especially as he wishes to close the east London supply centre in Brentwood. He has paid tribute to blood donors and those of us who are past that age are happy to pay taxes for the process to continue. He has praised and emphasised the voluntary factor. Does he agree that that means that there should be no element of commercialism in anything that happens to the blood subsequently? If there is such commercialism, it is absolutely wrong. It is something that taxpayers and blood donors oppose and they will oppose any Government who change that principle.

Mr. Malone: Before the hon. Gentleman becomes hysterical about commercialism, let me set the matter in context. I was intending to do so later. Blood and the red cells derived from it are not for sale. They are provided at a price—a cost production price—to the national health service and the private sector in this country. With the increasing number of donations, there is an increasing quantity of blood products. The hon. Gentleman must ask himself what donors would say if products derived from blood donations were destroyed rather than sold in other marketplaces.

Mr. Alton: rose—

Mr. Malone: I will gladly give way when I have finished this point.
The cash received for those products is put back into the national health service to pay for increased patient care. That is something that, when properly explained rather than described in the rather absurd tones that the hon. Gentleman used, would be welcomed by the population of this country.

Mr. Spearing: I was keeping my intervention short. I was excluding the question of the sale of products abroad. I am talking about the attitude of cutting costs and of making one area compete against another and reducing costs, possibly at the expense and risk of providing a lower-quality service. The hon. Gentleman cannot deny that that is happening. Surely that was the way in which the consultants mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) went about their task.

Mr. Malone: I do not agree and, as I get on with my speech, the hon. Gentleman will understand that the proposals put forward for consultation, which are now with the Secretary of State, are designed to get rid of the inequalities in the service—any number of ranges of standards and costs—so that we can have a truly national service.

Mr. Alton: Does the Minister accept that the objection is not so much to the reinvestment of money within the national health and blood services, as to the fact that blood

is being sold overseas at a list price of £90, but is then sold in countries such as Turkey at a list price of £399. Can he justify the profit made, given that he, his colleagues and the National Blood Authority have said that no profit is made out of blood? The profit is made by middlemen, who are creaming off substantial sums of money from donations given generously out of the good hearts of people in this country. Should not people in this country rightly object to that?

Mr. Malone: Those lists have been drawn to my attention. If the hon. Gentleman suggests that we should have custody from the Dispatch Box of arrangements as to when and in what circumstances blood products will move on from this country or from the national blood service, I must say that that is an extension of control beyond anything that even he should expect. The corollary of what he is saying is that it would be impossible to pass such products into any marketplace because it is not possible to control where they would go from there. Such controls simply do not exist.

Mr. Alton: Why?

Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, asks why. It is impossible to have controls on passing such products into marketplaces because, as he would know if he were to look at the arrangements for competition policy, for example, in the European Union, it would not be allowed.

Ms Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Malone: No, I cannot give way to the hon. Lady. I have given way significantly already and I must move on.
The NBA was set up in 1993 because of a range of concerns. Despite the high standards of care achieved by our service, there was clearly some room for improvement. The large number of regional blood centres had led to variable administrative practices, duplication of effort, wasteful use of resources and inadequate co-ordination. Let me give the House some examples to support that suggestion.
First, there are the donor selection criteria. There was a detailed national list of risk factors designed to ensure exclusion of donors at risk of infection. It was subject however to different interpretation of detail from region to region, which meant the unnecessary exclusion of some donors for reasons that did not add to blood safety but was due to an over-rigid interpretation.
The criteria for determining the suitability of locations for collection sessions varied from region to region. There were different methods of processing blood into its different parts, some of which could affect the efficacy of the product, though not its safety.

Ms Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Malone: If I can get through this point, I will give way to the hon. Lady.
The reserve stockholding considered necessary for each centre varied between one day's supply and seven days' supply. Whatever can be said about that, one of those figures was clearly wrong and a view had to be taken about which was right.
There is also the question of use of stocks. Some regions aimed at self-sufficiency to the extent that they would ration their hospitals at times of temporary shortage rather than call on stocks that were available from other regions.
There is a wide variety of different arrangements for 24-hour on-call access to consultant specialist advice. That causes confusion to doctors who, in the course of their employment, move to other regions.
There was also the question of dissemination of information to donors. The forms, leaflets and other communications to donors varied in content, quality and frequency from region to region. There was clearly an agenda that had to be addressed and that is why the investigation was undertaken

Ms Eagle: I thank the Minister for giving way. He has made valid points but he has not made an argument as to why closing down five transfusion centres, including Liverpool, would deal with those points.

Mr. Malone: I shall deal not with closing down centres but with the restructuring that is proposed in the consultation document and the withdrawal of certain facilities from those centres. I was interested that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) got it right in his concluding remarks when he stopped referring to closure, as he had been doing at the beginning of his speech, and referred to the withdrawal of certain services from centres. I am glad that my intervention in his speech was effective.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: The withdrawal to which the Minister refers is closure, is it not?

Mr. Malone: I hardly need to refer the hon. Gentleman to the English dictionary for him to understand that there is a great distinction there. The withdrawal of processing facilities is taking place but the centres will remain as centres for blood donation and other activities; that is very different from closure.
I turn to the principles that lay behind the need for the reorganisation and what will underpin it. From the outset, the NBA has made the broad principles behind its proposals clear.
First, the blood service must remain a voluntary, unpaid donor system within the NHS. That is its great strength, as I have already acknowledged.
Secondly, we want to establish for the first time a truly national blood service based on high and uniform standards of safety, reliability and efficiency. Thirdly, we want to increase supply in line with increasing demand from increasing hospital activity and rapidly developing clinical techniques.
Fourthly, there is a moral obligation to use the generous gift of donors as efficiently as possible. That means working with hospital teams to use blood and blood products in the best possible way for each patient, to improve the safety and quality of the products and to make the services for donors better than they are now.
Fifthly, we want to collect blood at the most convenient locations for donors and ensure that the collection service is cost-effective. Sixthly, we want to rationalise administration to make it more efficient and effective and to remove waste arising from duplication, excess capacity or lack of co-ordination.
In summary, the proposals outlined in the consultation document are designed to increase supply; improve the way the blood supply is used; improve the safety and quality of blood products; improve services for donors; improve services for patients; and provide an efficient, cost-effective, national service.
The first step in the process was to establish the NBA and its main headquarters structure so that it could begin to plan. In effect, this provided a national blood service in name but the substance needed to be added to that. What are now under consideration are the NBA proposals to deliver the key second step of implementing the management arrangements that will convert the goal of a truly integrated national service into a practical reality.
The NBA consulted widely on its initial proposals in 1994 and gave full and detailed consideration to the responses received before arriving at the proposals which are before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Andrew Smith: On consultation, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many of those consulted agreed with the proposals and how many opposed them?

Mr. Malone: No, I cannot give the precise figures. I can tell him—

Mr. Alton: Put it in the Library.

Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman says put it in the Library. If he tables a parliamentary question he will get an answer, as he would to a question on any other point.
The consultation process was wide and it has been validated. It was far wider than Opposition Members believe and the proposals that followed from it are now before my right hon. Friend, who expects to reach a conclusion shortly.
I find the cries that we hear from the Opposition on all such matters surprising. Faced with any change, the Labour party always in some way demands the restoration or retention of the status quo. Faced with the status quo, it always demands change. Faced with a consultation process it always demands more time; if due time is given for proper consultation, the next cry is, "Why the great delay?"
Throughout the consultation process, absurd and groundless fears have been raised by the Labour party. It has placed or provoked countless scare stories in the tabloid press. I seek to tackle the worst of them head on.
How many scare stories stores have we had about privatisation? They are not true. There is no question of privatising the national blood service.
We dealt with commercialisation earlier in the debate but let me make a final point on it. We produce vastly more blood products, as opposed to the main ingredients of transfusions, than we can use. The NBA disposes of surplus blood products such as factor 8, which is used in the treatment of haemophilia, by selling them abroad. That is a long-standing practice based on the sound and humanitarian principle that someone can at least benefit from what would otherwise be destroyed.
The NBA seeks to recover its costs without any element of profit at all. It is unfortunate that the accusation has been repeated tonight that the NBA is somehow getting inflated prices in places such as Turkey. That is rubbish. Price setting outside the UK has nothing to do with the NBA and is not within the control of the Government.
On the scare about the closure of blood centres, the transfer of certain functions, as we have already established in exchanges across the Dispatch Box, does not amount to the closure of a service.

Ms Eagle: I thank the Minister for giving way again. Will he admit that, buried within the Bain report, which is some 600 pages long, support was canvassed for possible privatisation but was dismissed. However, there was widespread support for the proposition that the English blood service should pursue profitable commercial opportunities outside the UK. How does the Minister square what he has just told the House with the information that is buried in the Bain report, which cost £600,000 of public money to produce?

Mr. Malone: I am telling the House the policy and what will happen. There is no policy along the lines suggested by the hon. Lady. The Bain report will not drive this process; it will be driven by the Secretary of State's decision, based on proposals put to him by the NBA.
The question of donor confidentiality has also been raised. I confirm, for the sake of donors, that information will remain strictly confidential and will not be made available to commercial companies for any purpose or under any circumstances. There is one simple reason for that. I remind the House that the relationship between the blood service and its donors is exactly the same as the relationship between a doctor and a patient.
As for scares about the safety of supply, it has been wrongly suggested that reorganisation will somehow prejudice security of supply. At present, excess capacity in processing, testing and grouping blood is about 50 per cent.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East made what he thought was an amusing remark about a possible debate on how many pints of blood it is sensible to use in a particular operation. The practice varies across the country, and one purpose of reorganising the service is to establish credibility in the clinical techniques for transfusion so that there can be a proper level of supply for certain operations. If it now ranges, as it often does in orthopaedic surgery for the same procedure, between zero pints and some 2.5 to 3 pints or even more, one of the clinicians has clearly got it wrong. The transfusion service needs to develop its clinical abilities and disseminate them across the country so that a proper view can be taken.
The new service will have three prime objectives: an improved service to donors, an improved service to hospitals and their patients, and lower operating costs and less bureaucracy by removing the present duplication, variation and wasteful use of resources. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East is fast enough to ask questions at the Dispatch Box or on the Order Paper about management costs in the health service. I should have thought that he would welcome the objective of cutting out bureaucracy in our national transfusion service rather than seeming to be entirely against it.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I said in my speech that the efficient running of the service was an objective of ours

as well as a claimed objective of the Minister. I raised two important constitutional matters with him and I hope that he will deal with them both before he sits down.

Mr. Malone: I shall indeed. On the hon. Gentleman's first point, a number of people have been employed by the service with a view to putting planning into effect. That is common practice where change is proposed. It would be absurd to suggest that a service facing change should not plan for it and put in place the proper structures to do so. I do not know quite what the hon. Gentleman suggests. Had that not been done, I bet that he would have suggested that there had been a failure of anticipation and would have said that the seamless service now provided by the blood transfusion service had been prejudiced.
The hon. Gentleman's second point, which he always makes, was about gagging clauses. The position is simple. Everybody has a right to talk to his or her Member of Parliament if he or she so wishes. The rules that will affect people in the National Blood Authority are the same because it is a special health authority. It is not a quango, as has been suggested in the House tonight. The rules are the same as those that affect any other employee within the family of the national health service, and the same standards apply.
As has been pointed out in letters issued by the chief executive of the service, it would be absurd if a Member of Parliament were the first resort without exercising the right to talk to the direct employers. So the point made by the hon. Gentleman has no worth at all. My right hon. Friend has taken, and is taking, the keenest interest in the revised proposals submitted to the Department in early July. It is clearly important for the future of the service that decisions are taken as quickly as possible, but it is even more important that they are the right decisions.

Mr. Barry Porter: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Malone: I am concluding my speech.
The principles on which those decisions will be taken, and on which this important service will continue to be based once they are taken, are ones on which the House, the country and donors will be able to rely.

Mrs. Jane Kennedy: First, I declare an interest in this debate. My candidacy at the general election is sponsored by Unison, a trade union that represents a number of the staff affected by the proposals that we are considering tonight. I also have a constituency interest, which is that many donors and users of the service in Liverpool have expressed their concerns to me. Secondly, surgeons and consultants at the cardiothoracic centre, which is a regional centre providing treatment for heart and lung disease, have expressed their grave concerns, not only to me but to Ministers, about the proposals. I shall return to that shortly.
The Minister said that if we were to table a question, he would place in the Library a list of the people who had responded to the consultation document. On 9 February 1995, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) asked whether the Secretary of State would
publish (a) all the responses to the National Blood Authority consultation document and (b) a list of all the organisations and individuals who have opposed the reorganisation proposals".— [Official Report, 9 February 1995; Vol. 254, c. 367.]


The answer was that those were responses to the National Blood Authority and that therefore the replies were the property of the NBA. Will the Minister publish that information if we table a question now directly to the Secretary of State?

Mr. Alton: I support what the hon. Lady says. She will recall from our meetings that John Adey assured us that there would be a rethink if clinical opinion were opposed to the changes. How can there be a rethink if we do not know what clinical opinion was—most of us could have a guess—and if the Government will not publish the responses?

Mrs. Kennedy: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. At that public meeting he had a further assurance from the platform in front of hundreds of people in Liverpool's St. George's hall.
A member of the Liberal Democrat party, Councillor Frank Doran, asked of the Mersey NBA:
The Liverpool centre is an acknowledged 'centre of excellence'. An assurance has been given that no changes will be implemented if clinical opinion remains opposed. If clinical opinion remains opposed will the changes still go ahead?
The National Blood Authority replied:
Clinical opinion has been listened to very seriously and further meetings held. Sir Colin has met with the Mersey branch of the BMA, which is concerned about whether the proposals are workable and deliverable.
That was it. It was no answer at all. Clinical opinion throughout Merseyside remains extremely concerned about the proposals.
From as early as February this year, a referendum has been conducted among senior clinicians in Merseyside, north Wales and the Isle of Man. More than 300 top clinicians have stated that they are strongly opposed to the proposals because of the risks to patients' lives.
The former Secretary of State was sent a copy of the results of that referendum, which I am afraid demonstrates that the Government are prepared to ignore clinical opinion to drive through a change that, as currently proposed, is not in anyone's interest.

Mr. Malone: What risks?

Mrs. Kennedy: I can tell the Minister exactly the risks about which the clinicians are concerned.

Mr. Allan Rogers: The problems encountered in north Wales and Merseyside have been repeated in south Wales, where the specialised screening unit at Cardiff is to be transferred to London. None of its skilled staff are able to transfer, which means that an extremely valuable facility will be lost not just to Wales but to the whole country.

Mrs. Kennedy: Before I outline the risks, I should like to deal with the survey of clinical opinion that was taken on Merseyside. Given the failure of the NBA to reiterate assurances previously given, will the Minister now offer them to us? Will he say that so long as clinical opinion remains deeply unhappy about the proposals he will not force through a closure that his own professional staff have told him they do not believe to be in the interests of patients? [HON. MEMBERS: " Answer"] We do not want

any more weasel words; we want a straight answer to a plain question. I was asked to outline the risks, but they have been dismissed by Ministers. That is outrageous.

Mr. Malone: The hon. Lady knows perfectly well that it is not the outcome of a referendum upon which Ministers make their decisions. Proper clinical judgments will be considered and will form part of my right hon. Friend's decision. The hon. Lady is talking about petitions that are circulated and simply signed—I do not know on what basis. They are not what I would represent as clinical opinion in the sense of providing the best basis of evidence upon which to proceed.

Mrs. Kennedy: I do not think that anyone listening to the debate will accept that response.

Ms Eagle: My hon. Friend will have a copy of a letter from Sir Donald Wilson, the chairman of the regional health authority on Merseyside. He is hardly a friend of the Opposition, but he, too, is opposed to the proposal and has written to say so.

Mrs. Kennedy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
Clinicians and cardiothoracic surgeons at the cardiothoracic centre in my constituency in Liverpool expressed their concern about the proposal last October in a letter to Sir Colin Walker, the chairman of the NBA. They stated:
The figure you quote of two hours travelling time in an emergency as a maximum is far too long for the work that we undertake. In the sorts of emergencies that we deal with, such a delay will result in the death of a number of patients.
That is quite plain and straightforward. Those are the risks and it is disturbing that Ministers are prepared to dismiss such comments.

Mr. Malone: Given the way in which the hon. Lady puts them, I am certainly not prepared to accept that they are accurate. Let me remind her that hospitals keep their own store of blood and often it is sufficient to last them for at least one, two or perhaps even more days. Secondly, the standard of two hours is an absolute maximum time. Many hospitals will still be able to receive supplies if they need to call upon them within a far shorter time. Therefore, for the hon. Lady to suggest that two hours will be the norm for anyone who needs to call upon a blood supply is rubbish.

Mrs. Kennedy: I am not making a suggestion but quoting directly from a letter written by clinicians and surgeons at a hospital in my constituency who are deeply concerned about the proposals.

Mr. Andrew Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that concern has been expressed by clinicians across the country? For example, the regius professor of medicine at the university of Oxford has written:
This is a complex hospital with both a busy Accident and Emergency service and a number of specialised services, particularly related to diseases of the blood. We remain unconvinced that a safe and effective service could be maintained for the local population if it were centred in Birmingham or Bristol.
People will know who to believe between the Minister and the regius professor of medicine.

Mrs. Kennedy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do not intend to say any more on that subject, but I will


ensure that clinicians at the cardiothoracic centre at Liverpool receive a copy of Hansard so that they can see how their concerns have been dealt with in the House.
In their letter to the chairman of the NBA, the clinicians and surgeons also said that without the services of the local blood transfusion centre they would have to "dramatically increase" their in-hospital blood stores. The Minister is quite right to say that hospitals have their own stores, but those clinicians have said that they will have to "dramatically increase" them. That is one way in which the notional £10 million saving that the blood transfusion service claims will be made will be passed on to hospitals. The real savings to the health service must be seriously questioned in the House, especially since we have been unable to get to the bottom of the figures produced during the whole sorry business. The clinicians also said in their letter:
This whole process would be both costly and wasteful of donated blood and blood products.
New information technology systems have been proposed. I am pleased that the NBA has agreed that the new system should operate in tandem with the old one for a pilot period of six months. That is a great relief because the original proposal was to introduce and operate the new system from a standing start. I have been disturbed, however, to hear about plans to trade access to lists of donors in exchange for sponsorship of donor sessions. I firmly believe that throughout this process donors have been treated with scant respect by the people who manage the National Blood Authority and the blood transfusion service.

Mr. Barry Porter: I have listened with great interest to the hon. Lady. I also represent part of Merseyside and I have had considerable correspondence on this matter. The hon. Lady obviously knows a great deal about the issue. Is she suggesting that the present arrangements governing the blood service on Merseyside are absolutely perfect? Is there no room for improvement and, if so—I presume she knows it all—have the clinicians who have come to her door in droves suggested any?

Mrs. Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman need not be patronising. I do not claim to be an expert. His question is a fair one. None of the staff involved in this process have said that they oppose change full stop. I would be the first to recognise that the introduction of a national information system to which all centres have access, as well doctors and clinicians at every hospital, is an improvement on current services. I welcome that.
Donors are concerned at being treated in a cavalier fashion by the managers of the service. They are concerned that their trust in the service has proved to be misplaced. A press report, which has been denied, but the rumours continue, suggested that access to the lists of donors kept on computer was to be sold. I have already referred to sponsorship. Donors could be invited to a centre and, with their invitation, might receive advertisements for Ribena and McVities. Concern has been expressed to blood transfusion staff that donors have lost their free supply of biscuits as a result of that story. Such is the attitude of senior managers in the blood transfusion service. It is symptomatic of the way in which they have dealt with the whole business. Their cavalier attitude has been appalling.
I should like to quote a direct example of the attitude of those managers by quoting from Sir Colin Walker, who had a meeting on 12 September with representatives of Liverpool city council.
In order to extol the virtues of the new information technology system, the chairman said:
If someone in Liverpool"—
for example—
was brought in needing an urgent infusion of a rare blood group and the local donor
was
away on holiday—then, rather than having to ring around, the doctor
dealing with the patient
could tap into the computer and find that the unit of
the required
blood was in, say, Taunton.
Councillors expressed incredulity that blood could be brought from Taunton to Liverpool in any short time, let alone two hours. Sir Colin remarked that there was a good rail network between Taunton and Liverpool. But then he conceded that perhaps that might have been a bad example to use.
That is a typical example of the way in which the people responsible, placed in that position of responsibility by Conservative Ministers, have dealt with that process. It has been a public relations disaster. Donors have been dismayed, to say the least, by the way in which their trust has been betrayed. It is about time that Ministers took seriously the anxieties that are being expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The more sophisticated our medical techniques become—with the obvious exception of keyhole and laser surgery—the more we depend on regular supplies of blood products prepared to the highest standard. We are one of the few countries—it is a proud boast—where donors give blood freely, unlike other countries, where it is paid for.
That being so, it is the clear duty of a Government to ensure that that freely donated blood is collected as conveniently as possible from donors in the best possible surroundings and prepared and used in the most effective way for the benefit of patients.
Few, if any, services can more truly claim to be life saving than the blood transfusion service, and no hon. Member in the Chamber tonight can know when we may become grateful recipients.
We are fortunate in having an excellent blood centre in Lancaster and a devoted and committed rota of donors, especially anti-D donors, of whom we have no fewer than 14 per cent. of the national total. We serve eight hospitals in the region, including the Victoria hospital, Blackpool and our local hospitals, and they have a right to expect a high standard of service.
I am proud that 20 of our local plasma donors recently took part in the study of a revolutionary antibody to help mothers with rhesus-negative babies, yet another feather in Lancaster's cap.
When the National Blood Authority's proposals were first published, many of the donors feared that they might have to travel to Manchester to donate blood. I do not know how that rumour got around, but it certainly did get


around and it took a great deal of uprooting. However, I am happy to say that that fear has been put at rest. As the Minister emphasised, donors will continue to be able to donate locally with the teams who have worked with them so long—and the relationship of donors and teams who have serviced them is crucial.
However, the building from which our centre now works is a long way out of the city and it is far from ideal, in spite of efforts to make it as good as it possibly can be. Currently—and we have been striving for that for 20 years, to my certain knowledge—we are in the process of completing phase 3 of the modernisation of the Royal Lancaster infirmary, due to be finished in January. I should very much like consideration to be given to transferring the blood centre to the new RLI, where it could have purpose-built facilities and vastly improved conditions for donors and staff, and an even closer liaison—if that is possible, because it is already very close—with haematologists at the hospital.
The uncertainty that has prevailed for the past year, which was mentioned by Opposition Members, has been bad for the morale of donors and their teams. If the suggestion that the Secretary of State should visit all centres and that service provision be altered were to be adopted, that uncertainty would be unacceptably prolonged. Already, skilled staff are applying for jobs elsewhere. We cannot allow that haemorrhage to continue, or the service that we all wish to protect really will be endangered.
I should like the Secretary of State, who already has all the information regarding the Lancaster centre in his possession, to make a quick decision.
On a quite different subject, there has been a great deal of misunderstanding and misrepresentation about the sale of blood products abroad. Yesterday, I received an excellent, well-balanced letter from the Haemophilia Society—it is an exceptional society—on that subject. It said clearly that the society does not object in principle to the sale of surplus stocks of blood products, provided that does not cause shortages in the United Kingdom and that income earners remained in the national health service.
I am bound to say that I would go further than that and require the money to remain within the NBA for the constant improvement of the service, where technology is evolving with frightening rapidity. We must keep up with the best available techniques. It is our duty to do so and not to waste that valuable product.
The chairman of the NBA, Sir Colin Walker, gave his assurance when he came to talk to donors and staff at our centre last year. He has been several times, not only that time. He said that the only alternative to selling surplus product was to burn it. Hon. Members should have seen the expressions on people's faces when he said that, but that happens to be the truth. I did not know that. It is the only sensible, clean way of disposing of it. That appears to be an awful waste.
Obviously, not all blood components are required in equal quantities, as Opposition Members admitted. It is entirely logical, highly to be recommended and in everyone's interest to earn money on surplus product, as I am sure that no donor would like to feel that any part of his blood had been burnt.
In all our discussions, we must never forget that it is the donors who give their blood freely and regularly whom we must consider. They are the star performers in

the act. I believe that a spanking new centre at the RLI, in the centre of the city, would be perfect for them. I urge the Minister to pass on what I have said to the Secretary of State, to ensure that that is the solution he chooses—and quickly, so that our excellent centre can continue happily and efficiently with its life-saving work.

Mr. Jenkin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that activities may be taking place in the Committee Room upstairs that have recently been outlawed by the European Court of Justice, regarding the elections to the Labour shadow Cabinet, which—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is nothing whatever to do with the Chair, and the hon. Gentleman well knows it.

Mr. Alex Carlile: The voluntary principle has been mentioned by several hon. Members. It is the crucial principle underlying the existence of the blood donorship scheme in this country. No one in the House would wish that voluntary principle to be lost to the country.
The National Blood Authority appears to have harmed the reputation of that voluntary system in the way in which it has mistakenly allowed some aspects of the sales abroad of factor 8 to take place.
I belong to the school of thought that believes that it would be ridiculous to throw away surplus blood products for some xenophobic reason. I doubt that many people in the House believe that one should throw away surplus factor 8. It should be made available to others who need it. If possible, in the light of the voluntary principle, it should be given to those needing it in other countries. As the Minister of State said, it may be that there are difficulties in doing so for international legal reasons. Also, it is a reasonable argument that the National Blood Authority should cover its costs. I have no quarrel with it for doing that.
In his speech, the Minister of State, who is a lawyer, seemed to be being extremely naive in imagining that it was not possible to regulate, quite simply, what happens to factor 8 after it is sold abroad.
I have in my hand a copy of a price list taken from a Turkish publication. My Turkish hardly runs to a restaurant menu, but it is plain from the price list that blood products—indeed, factor 8—which can be traced to the National Blood Authority, and which has been sold by it, is being sold on at a profit margin of about 450 per cent. I do not understand why the National Blood Authority, when selling that important product abroad, cannot establish in its contracts of sale enforceable conditions to ensure that that does not happen. It is quite normal for international contracts to contain restrictive conditions on what should happen to the product that is sold. It happens regularly with regard to defence material and I do not see why it should not happen in relation to blood.
Bearing in mind the voluntary principle, I ask the Government to reconsider the issue. Is it right that blood products donated freely by people in Britain should be the subject of profiteering by middle men, whether in Turkey or in any other country, when there is a means available to prevent it? Why, at least, does not the National Blood Authority, urged by the Government, try to improve that


unhappy and unsatisfactory trade? It is not simply a question of the morality of the contracting procedures, but of whether the National Blood Authority can justify the reputation that it must earn if the voluntary principle is to continue as successfully as before.

Mr. Alton: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the most scurrilous factors involves the question put to people in a survey which offered them the crude choice of whether they would prefer to have their blood products and donations burnt or sold? Does he agree that options other than those two stark contrasts are available? One such option is to give those blood products to people in underdeveloped countries who will not live beyond their twenties if they are haemophiliacs and unable to obtain factor 8. We should deny those people who profiteer in a commercial and exploitative way the opportunity of making money out of products that have been voluntarily given by people out of the generosity of their hearts.

Mr. Carlile: As ever, my hon. Friend makes his point extremely well. It is right that people are entitled to expect that, when they are consulted about such issues, they are asked questions that do not ensure an answer that is to the Government's tune. It is a bit like having a referendum in Iraq on who should be the president without having more than one candidate.
The reorganisation proposals justify other criticisms—perhaps it is unfair to say that they are criticisms only of the National Blood Authority. It seems that the criticism could equally be levelled at the Government who, after all, have the disposition of the future of the National Blood Authority in their hands.
Hon. Members have already raised the issue of assurances, given by the National Blood Authority, which have not been fulfilled. I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) that that is particularly true of assurances given in meetings in Liverpool. It is plainly on record that John Adey, the chief executive of the National Blood Authority, underlined an assurance that had already been given by Sir Colin Walker. The assurance was made in the clearest possible terms. It was stated that unless a majority of consultant haematologists and other relevant medical experts in the area agreed that patient services could be at least maintained or preferably improved, the changes would not take place.
We have heard a lame suggestion from the Minister of State that the views of consultant haematologists and other medical experts are the property of the National Blood Authority and therefore we are not entitled to hear about them. Is it a new principle that Members of Parliament are not entitled to be told about consultations in relation to organisations that are part of the Government service, whatever their exact status? That does not ring true when we compare it with what we now know of what was going on in the Prison Service despite its agency status.
I am not seeking to draw a conclusion from what has been said by Opposition parties. I am drawing my conclusion from what is said in the Learmont report. It is clear that there are many precedents, of which the Prison Service is but one—Learmont provides some evidence—

to show that Ministers can and do interfere in operational decisions, particularly those that determine the future of a service.
It is outrageous that the clinical opinion that has been given to the National Blood Authority is being concealed from Members of Parliament. One is bound to draw the conclusion that it is being concealed because it is not the same conclusion as that reached by the Government and the National Blood Authority's chief executive and chairman. When the Under-Secretary winds up the debate, I challenge him to tell the House that, having heard the views on the subject, he is prepared to place those representations in the Library of the House so that we can see what they were. It is perhaps an indication of the views of the consultant haematologists that the National Health Service Consultants Association recently passed a motion of no confidence in the National Blood Authority's proposals.
Another criticism that can readily and justifiably be made is that the strategic view has been founded on conclusions based on invalid premises. The most obvious one is the strategic review's fundamental conclusion that blood demand was rising at about 2.6 per cent. year on year. Since that was said it has been demonstrated and admitted that blood demand is now rising at 4 per cent. a year—a significant difference.
The point has been made again and again—it is right and fair to accept it—that blood collection is less affected by the proposals than processing and testing. But processing and testing are significant issues. We have heard some eloquent voices from Liverpool about the effect on that city. But my constituency, which is situated 70 or so miles from Liverpool, and all points in between, will be affected by what happens to processing and testing in Liverpool. Very little regard has been paid to issues relating to transport, cost of transport, and the consequences of delays in transport.
I can only presume that Sir Colin Walker was so confused by his geography that he mixed up Taunton and Wigan—or possibly Welshpool. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) wish me to give way? It is always a pleasure to let him into a debate.

Mr. Barry Porter: I was wondering whether, in some magic way, the hon. and learned Gentleman could put Montgomery closer to Liverpool than it has hitherto been.

Mr. Carlile: Not at all. I am not sure when the hon. Gentleman last visited my constituency, but I can assure him that on the newer roads it is a good deal easier to reach a hospital in Liverpool than some of the much closer hospitals in Wales.
Another issue that seems to have been addressed on the basis of false premises is the cost of holding stock. It has not been possible to find any assessment of the cost of stockholding in the National Blood Authority's proposals. It is said that there will be a national saving of £10 million. However, one must question whether that will be so with the introduction of a completely new management tier, involving 25 senior managers.
As the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), said, the appointment of so many new managers is unprecedented before reorganisation. I ask the Under-Secretary to inform the House whether the Government have taken advice from the Government


Legal Service as to whether the appointment of 25 senior executives before reorganisation is ultra vires action on the part of the National Blood Authority. I believe that that may be the case as a straightforward matter of law.

Ms Eagle: The hon. and learned Gentleman raises an interesting point about the cost of holding blood in stockholder units. I believe that we must take into account another factor if the Manchester centre prevails in the production of blood. It will cost more to process blood per unit at that centre than at the Liverpool centre and hospitals in the Merseyside area have estimated that it will cost them an extra £3 million to buy the stocks that they currently purchase from the Liverpool centre. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman should also take that sum away from the £10 million saving that Mr. Adey and his cohorts are trying to persuade us that they can achieve.

Mr. Carlile: The hon. Lady, with her usual capacity for detail, has made a very good point and I accept what she said. As I understand it, eight key committees were established to advise the National Blood Authority steering group about rationalisation. The membership of the key strategy group could hardly be described as balanced. Liverpool had no representatives on the group, although Manchester did, and Liverpool is to be "reorganised"—to use the euphemism. Lancaster had no representative on the group, although Manchester did, and Lancaster is to be reorganised. I also understand that Oxford had no representative on the group and it is to be reorganised as well.
The Government were asking for trouble—which they now have—by attempting to make a well supported and rational economic change to an important public service without seeking proper representation from the areas that were most likely to be affected. The Government cannot run away from the fact that the public have no confidence in the Government's proposed reorganisation of the National Blood Authority. There are six main points to be made in that regard and I shall summarise them.
The reorganisation is founded upon conclusions, the evidence for which the Government are refusing to publish. Therefore, the case is unsubstantiated. The conclusions are based on inadequate consultation for the reason that I have given in relation to the membership of the steering group and for a whole host of other reasons that we may read about almost daily in the medical literature.
The assurances that were given—when at least three hon. Members were present—have been broken quite outrageously. As a result, the morale of service staff has been undermined. A long list of distinguished haematology experts who have worked in the blood service have left or are leaving as a result of the reorganisation.
Another point is that the Government have undermined donors' faith in the service and they will have to fight hard to restore that faith. All hon. Members hope that the Government will do so, but to succeed they will need to produce a reorganisation that is credible to the donors.
Finally, as the Minister's speech in the debate demonstrated, the Government and the NBA have conspired in a public relations disaster that is hard to parallel—even in the history of the Government's stewardship of the national health service. I hope that

when Ministers mull over the debate they will decide that the proposals are flawed and that they will be revised substantially.

Mr. Eric Pickles: The Brentwood centre in my constituency is affected by the proposals. I think that it is correct to stress the good work of the National Blood Authority. Our supply of blood is probably one of the best in the world, and only the Australian Red Cross comes close to meeting our standards. It is also correct to pay tribute to the many thousands of blood donors who freely give their blood and so guarantee a constant supply of high quality blood.
As a former member of a regional health authority, I can recall those early days when the fear of HIV was widespread and when we did not quite understand some of the problems associated with hepatitis. The National Blood Authority and the regional units moved quickly to ensure that our blood supplies remained trouble-free.
If we are to make changes to what is a very successful service, we must be certain that the changes will be lasting and that they will enjoy the support of the most valuable component of the service: the donors. I do not believe that there can be any substantial argument against the need for reform. With the reduction in the size of regional health authorities, we can make a case for moving to a zoning policy. A move to three zones should improve the management of the service and ensure an equalisation of supply. It makes not a jot of sense to ration blood supplies in some hospitals when supplies are available in other parts of the country.
It makes sense to have a system that allows computers to talk to one another so that shortages of blood products in one area can be matched to over-production in another. The problem with the report is that the devil is in the detail. The Bain report's recommendations fly in the face of many of its findings, and its recommendation about Brentwood is perverse.
I thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, who is in the Chamber, for his patience and courtesy in listening to my arguments and to those of my constituents. The Government should take their time and listen to such representations. However, the time for a final decision is approaching swiftly. A year is a long time, and we are beginning to see staff drift and a lack of authority within the service to make changes.
I congratulate the Labour party on its choice of motion today. It is quite a feat to complain about the time available for reorganisation while tabling a motion calling for an extension of the consultation exercise.
We come into contact with the national health service when we are ill. We do not often have an opportunity to give something back to the NHS—except through our taxation system—but blood donation gives the ordinary citizen an opportunity to do just that. In our stewardship of the national health service we must be accountable and that is doubly important when it comes to the blood


service. There would be no service without the active co-operation of donors. The proposals must continue to attract donors and to enjoy their support.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the sort of scare stories that we have heard from Labour Members tonight may discourage donors from giving blood in the future?

Mr. Pickles: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We know from the Bain report that 70 per cent. of donors are happy with the current system and only 1 per cent. are strongly against it. The shift towards mobile collections must not risk jeopardising regular established collection sites. After all, we know that special donors attend the Brentwood centre to donate plasma and platelets and we must retain their confidence.
The staff of Brentwood blood transfusion service have not engaged in opposition for its own sake; they have certainly not engaged in the some of the silly scare stories or the nonsense about the sale of blood products. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said that he was not concerned with matters of xenophobia about the sale of factor 8 and then gave us a lecture on the perfidy of Johnny Turk in making a profit. We know where the Liberal Democrats stand. They would give the product to people abroad. That means that we would have to subsidise the product to go abroad as we would have to pay for its shipping, transportation and distribution.

Mr. Alex Carlile: If the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble and had the courtesy to listen, he would have heard me say that it is our view that the National Blood Authority is entitled to cover its costs, so will he now withdraw the entirely false accusation that he made or will he perpetuate such a myth?

Mr. Pickles: I am happy to clarify what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said on a number of occasions from a sedentary position. He said, "Let us give it." As the present arrangements are to cover the costs—exactly what he suggests—perhaps it might be sensible if he withdrew his objections and supported factor 8 which has no international boundaries. [Interruption.] The problem is that the hon. and learned Gentleman is jumping from bandwagon to bandwagon and he must understand that he will occasionally fall between them.

Ms Eagle: Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of the Brentwood proposals in the NBA report—that the Brentwood centre should have its heart torn away by having its blood production facilities shifted elsewhere? Is he in favour or will he join us in the Lobby tonight?

Mr. Pickles: I shall come to that point in a few moments. First, I should like to give the views of the staff at Brentwood. I have had no problems with gagging; they

have given me full briefing on all the matters concerned. Let us see what concerns them. They are not against the proposals in principle. They say in a detailed document:
We acknowledge and support the following initiatives which would yield significant cost savings in the short-term:—
Zonal centralisation Administration, financial services (including payroll) and personal services.
Negotiation of purchase contracts on a national basis.
Rationalisation of low volume product production and low volume testing to fewer sites within the NBS.
The introduction of a national IT system to replace the various different IT systems in use.
So why are the recommendation about Brentwood wrong? It is not sensible to transfer Brentwood's facilities to Collingdale. I have yet to meet a health economist, clinician or health worker who thinks that it makes sense. Considerable sums of public money have already been spent on renovating the Brentwood centre, as my hon. Friend the Minister has seen for himself.
I understand the arguments about the storage of blood, but they must not obscure the arguments for having good regional coverage for the processing plants. The initial confusion of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) does not help matters. Our objection is not about the centre, which would remain open as a storage facility, but about the removal of the processing plant. Brentwood transfusion provides reference services on a 24-hour, seven-day week basis for hospital users. Cross matching blood and antibodies is sometimes required urgently. To restrict facilities for Essex and the rest of East Anglia to Collingdale and Cambridge is not a good use of resources.
Essex, in common with the rest of East Anglia, is a rapidly growing county. Its population is growing rapidly. Brentwood is close to the M25, the M11, the A12 and the A13. Blood can be quickly processed and used from an area covering north London and beyond to the whole of East Anglia. Blood from the most remote part of our region can be returned for processing within a relatively short period.
We know from the Bain report that the optimum size for a processing plant is somewhere between 250,000 and 300,000 units per year. Brentwood processes 160,000 units, Cambridge 100,000 units and Collingdale 220,000 units. Collingdale is beginning to approach the upper limits of what Bain considered sensible. Collingdale and Cambridge have restricted sites and the need for blood products within the north London and East Anglia region will continue to grow. Additional space would have to be found in Collingdale to process blood from the north-east Thames region. Brentwood can easily absorb that expansion without any additional building. There is a possibility within the Brentwood centre for a second independent processing line. There is sufficient room to take all the processing from Cambridge.
Cambridge, in addition to blood processing, carries out outstanding research of the storage of human tissue. That work on human tissues is not dependent on its processing work. It is a restricted site and in my view it is in the best interests of the National Blood Authority and the national health service if Cambridge is allowed to continue its research and storage of human tissue and that its facilities for blood processing are transferred to Brentwood.
In conclusion, I ask my hon. Friend to make the decision as quickly as possible, to have high regard to the use of processing and the work of Brentwood and to


ensure that, in the retention of Brentwood, we have the possibility of ensuring that a growing region has the facilities to process blood.

Ms Angela Eagle: First, I should declare that I am sponsored by Unison, which has members who are affected by some of the proposals as they work in the blood service, but no personal payment is made to me as a result of that sponsorship.
We need to assess what has been going on. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) for the work he has been doing in his own area to try to preserve the facilities that he discussed so eloquently. We have been doing similar work. Many of us agree with and recognise his plea that to remove the processing part of a transfusion centre is to rip out its heart and thereafter it is difficult for it to retain its specialist services and operate as anything more than a glorified fridge.
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, but I shall take the same line as I make a plea for the Liverpool centre. The people of Merseyside have affection for it and know how vital it is to their own well-being. I am not going to plead for the Liverpool centre to be kept open at the expense of another centre. I believe that the entire approach to the rationalisation that we have been discussing has been fundamentally wrong, and that we must take a completely new look at the issue.
The motion suggests that the Secretary of State should visit all five centres that are threatened with—I will continue to call it closure. As the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar pointed out, when we take processing facilities away from centres we are effectively taking the heart out of them. "Closure" strikes me as a reasonably accurate description of what is planned for these centres—and it is the description that the National Blood Authority applied from the beginning in its consultation. It began to drop the term only when it realised what the opposition was.
I associate myself with all that has been said about the precious nature of our donor system, which is based on altruism and relies on trust and confidence. No one, I hope, would deny that it is the highest-quality system of blood provision that any country has managed to design so far. We should all be very proud of that, and pay tribute not only to donors but to the staff who work in the centres and to the national blood service. I am careful not to call it the National Blood Authority, as I have had a rather lower opinion of the body since it was made a special health authority in 1993—partly as a result of my own dealings with it, which I shall mention later.
Why, then, are we trying to introduce a fundamental, root-and-branch reform of a system that has worked so well? Why are we trying to force that reform through? Why was the decision made in secret, and why are we not allowed access to the results—

Mr. John Marshall: It was not made in secret.

Ms Eagle: It was made in secret, by committees—and, as the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar pointed out, Liverpool was not represented on the committees that

decided that that centre was to close. A good deal has been wrong with the way in which the reform has been planned.

Mr. Marshall: Does the hon. Lady not accept that there has been a consultation procedure and that, until a decision has been made following that procedure, nothing has in fact been decided?

Ms Eagle: I only wish that that were true. A zonal system is already operating, however, involving 25 new jobs and very large cars. There is a sense of inevitability about the whole business. The process and our trust in the service have been undermined by the way in which members of the National Blood Authority—particularly Sir Colin Walker and Mr. Adey—have conducted themselves during the past year while the so-called consultation has taken place.
Let us examine the history. First there was the Bain report, which, as was pointed out earlier, was set in train six months after the creation of the new special health authority—the National Blood Authority. After some rather dubious procedures, it came up with a saving of what it says was £10 million out of the overall cost of running the service—£135 million. The consultation document, however, contained few figures and no facts. There was no way of proving where savings could be made, and no obvious sign that any detailed work had been done to establish that. The figures seemed to have been plucked from the air.
The report—all 600 pages of it—cost £682,000 of public money to produce. Bain and Co. also carried out a consultancy job for the National Blood Authority on the future of the bio-products laboratory, which cost £350,000 of taxpayers' money. Of the £1.25 million of taxpayers' money that the National Blood Authority spent on consultants' reports last year, Bain has taken home £1,032,000—a large proportion of the total and, in my view, money for old rope, given the understanding of the workings of the system displayed in some of its recommendations. I consider its standard of work lamentable. It has little understanding of the technical side of blood collection, let alone any idea of the concept of altruism and the "gift relationship" that is so special and central to the way in which our blood service operates. I suppose that that is to be expected.
I am concerned about a number of the proposals, but I shall mention only three. It is clear that Bain canvassed management reaction to privatisation; having said that the idea had been dismissed, it found considerable management support—after circulating a questionnaire—for the idea that
The English blood service should adopt a more commercial attitude".
It also found overwhelming support among managers for the proposal that the bio-products laboratory should
sell surplus blood products outside the UK",
and the proposal that
The English blood service should pursue profitable commercial opportunities outside the UK".
That is a wide-ranging statement, which does not refer just to the sale of surplus blood products. Goodness knows what other "profitable commercial opportunities"


are envisaged. There was even more support for selling plasma. There is a hint of commercialisation, if not privatisation, in all this.

Mr. Waterson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Eagle: No. I am in the middle of dealing with an issue.
I can demonstrate that Bain did not know what it was talking about in other parts of the report as well, and adopted a wholly inappropriate attitude to the gift relationship and donors in particular. It seems that efficiency is measured by the number of pints of blood collected per employee, which strikes me as rather an unfortunate view of what success should mean in a national blood service. The report then glibly argues:
Collection teams can be easily designated to collect 140-plus donations per day".
We already know that 30 per cent. of all blood supplies are collected from donation points. Fewer than 90 pints are collected each day. People give blood to nearby villages; they do not want to have to traipse to some central point. They want to go to the local church hall and have a cup of tea with the person who has always collected their blood before giving it. The report suggests, however, that it is not economical to organise collection points for fewer then 140 donations a day. It goes on to say—I can only think that a time-and-motion study was carried out—that a rapid through-put system would enable that target to be reached—that being the "efficient" level of donation.
So, in this 18-minute process, 2.3 minutes are allocated to checking people in; 2.4 minutes to screening and questioning, just to check that the blood products to be donated so kindly are safe; 3.5 minutes to a quick haemoglobin test; and a frantic 9.8 minutes to taking the unit of blood. Rules are already in place—this fantastic firm of consultants who were paid so much did not seem to know anything about them—stating that 17.5 minutes is the minimum time in which to take a pint of blood, for all kinds of reasons. That means that the maximum throughput possible for a bloodmobile of the sort that would go to local villages is 60 or 70 units a day, barely half the recommended efficient amount—which just goes to show how much the consultants understand about blood collection and about what donors want.
The consultants also decided to take a look at keeping the blood at room temperature, to see whether that would be a viable efficiency saving. They concluded that it would, saying:
room temperature hold is a most desirable approach from a logistical and cost perspective … estimated saving potential £500,000".
Thus, to save £500,000, they recommended doing away with fridges. After all, people have to check that they are at the right temperature, which requires staff. Doing away with all those visits to the fridge would surely ease work scheduling and reduce processing and testing costs. The consultants add, at the bottom of the page, that there would be a
risk of enhancement of selected bacterial growth".
That just means that someone given a bad bag of blood will die or become seriously ill.
It is astonishing that people can come up with such ideas and then write them down. If I had paid £600,000 for such a report, I would feel seriously cheated—but of course the National Blood Authority is not paying for it out of its own pocket. The money is coming from taxpayers' pockets, so Sir Colin Walker can rest easy in his bed.
The consultation document that emerged from this fantastic piece of work was disgracefully shoddy: a masterpiece of doublespeak. It contained very few facts, and had clearly been written back from the conclusions that it created. Graphs were included, but without the relevant identifying axes, so no one could take a close look at what they really meant. They were meaningless, as any GCSE mathematics student could point out. The axes that appeared in the Bain report were removed because the published graphs showed that some of the centres it was felt should close were more efficient than the ones that were to be kept open.
That sort of approach is not only dishonest; it is shoddy and amateurish, and it immediately creates the impression that the wool is being pulled over people's eyes. It dissipates any confidence that we have in management when we see them employing such techniques.

Mr. Waterson: Inherent in the hon. Lady's last few remarks was the notion that efficiency matters, especially in organisations like the one we are debating, and that some centres are more or less efficient than others, as she conceded. If so, why was she so scathing about attempts by the consultants to examine efficiency in a fairly standard sort of fashion?

Ms Eagle: I do not want to get into a philosophical argument about efficiency. Of course efficiency matters; the point is that it must be put in a health context. When bed through-put is measured for efficiency in the usual economic way, it measures the number of patients who are put through beds, but it does not record whether they were dead or alive when they left the beds; so a slightly more sophisticated approach is called for when applying economic principles to the health service.
The consultation document offers a two-hour delivery guarantee for blood, and there has been some discussion this evening of whether that is adequate. It has been said that that would be a maximum time. But if the Liverpool centre closed, and production and supplies of blood went to Manchester, that would represent a gross deterioration in the service supplying the people of Merseyside, my constituents in Wallasey, and the 350,000 people who live in the Wirral. At present, most Liverpool hospitals can get supplies of blood in five to 15 minutes. Wirral hospitals can have supplies from Liverpool sent within 15 to 25 minutes. Wales, the most isolated area of the region, can expect blood supplies within 60 to 75 minutes. If my mathematics is correct, all those times are shorter than the two hours guaranteed once production facilities are closed in Liverpool.
The issue has come up in discussion and consultation with the National Blood Authority. It said, "Of course the centres won't close. Of course we'll have stockholding units." That was the phrase that Mr. Adey and Sir Colin Walker—my friends whom I admire so much—started to use.
We asked what was meant by the term "stockholding units", as they are not mentioned in any detail in the consultation report. In fact, those of us who were lobbying


the National Blood Authority with our concerns were of the opinion that the authority was making it up as it went along. Stockholding units are some kind of enhanced fridge facility where, apparently, one can keep extra supplies of blood in hospitals. The Liverpool centre holds 3,500 units of blood; the average so-called stockholding unit in a major hospital holds about 100. If stockholding units are to be put into local hospitals—for example, Arrowe Park, my local hospital—the cost would be significant. They would need a cold storage room, a fridge, administrators, people to look after the blood and people to dispatch the blood, so I do not see where the saving is if that is what stockholding units are.
I am interested in what Dr. Bill Wagstaff, one of the newly appointed heads of the northern zone, told the Health Care Management magazine. He said that there might be no new stockholding units at all and that a stockholding unit just means the old hospital fridge. He said:
Since some hospitals already holds supplies of blood and blood components for others in their area these may take on the official title of stockholders.
In other words, these are weasel words—something that we have come to expect from Mr. Adey and Sir Colin Walker. I met them and am sorry that the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) has left his place, because he was also at the all-party meeting of Wirral Members of Parliament. We were given an assurance at that meeting that there would be no changes to the current arrangements
unless a majority of consultant haematologists and other relevant medical experts in the area agreed that patient services could be maintained or improved.
Mr. Adey then backtracked and said that he did not want the majority idea to be involved in the agreement that he had made. He then said that, instead of having a majority,
We will talk to consultant haematologists and other medical experts in the area about our plans to maintain and improve patient care and will listen very carefully to their views and will move forward only if medical opinion is satisfied.
Medical opinion in Liverpool and Merseyside is not satisfied. These changes are opposed by all expert medical opinion. They are opposed by the people of Merseyside, of whom more than 1,000 attended a public meeting and told Mr. Adey and his blood authority exactly what they thought of these proposals. We will continue to fight them.
We hope that Ministers are listening, not only to medical and clinical experts but to the people of this country, and that they will reassess these disgraceful, damaging proposals and bring back something that we can all support and work for.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) on an extremely well researched and well argued speech, but when I compare it with that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) the contrast in tone could not be more marked.
There is a great problem in dealing with a national health service which needs to learn to cope with an ever faster pace of change. Whatever one's views about particular changes as they are proposed, I much prefer the approach of my hon. Friend, who recognises the need for change, the need for things to adapt and to modernise, as

opposed to the speech of the hon. Lady and other Opposition Members, who tend to display a wanton disregard for the need for change and to fall back on age-old prejudices that do not help the health service in any way at all.
If we had not managed to change the health service in the past 17 years of Conservative Government, goodness me the health service would be in a great mess today. We would not be treating an extra 3,500 patients per day in the modern NHS. If one looks at all the different reforms that the Conservatives have pushed through the House over the years, I am afraid that there is a rather consistent theme which runs alongside every one of them—that however good the reforms have been and however effective and successful they have proved eventually, the Opposition have exploited every opportunity to oppose them, to scare the public and to put around endless scare stories and myths about what is likely to happen.
That theme goes right back to the much missed, we were to understand, area health authorities. They were abolished in the early 1980s. Who talks about re-establishing them or mourns their passing now? Yet we were told then that the abolition of the area health authorities was the abolition of the NHS as we knew it.
The same happened with the introduction of the limited list system for drugs. We were told that it would be a great curtailment of the choices of clinicians and doctors in the health service and that it would be the end of the national health service as we knew it. The necessary savings and limitations that were put on doctors were totally disregarded, but they are now broadly accepted. Had we listened to all the doctors then, and had we behaved like the walking opinion poll of a Government that the Opposition seem to expect us to be, we would not have made those savings or that progress.
The same was true of the introduction of the NHS trusts, and what a success they have been. They have been so successful that even the Labour party is trying to pretend that its policy will emulate the advantages of NHS trusts in all but name. The Labour party still has a bit to learn about GP fundholders, although fundholding has been an extremely successful reform.
Most recently, there was the abolition of the regional health authorities through the Health Authorities Bill this year. No one, not even the Labour party, now seriously suggests that the regional authorities should be re-established after the next election. If we now allowed the prejudices and the opportunism of the Opposition to exploit public opinion on the extremely sensitive issue of the National Blood Authority and the blood transfusion service and to block progress in this area of the health service, it would be a setback and the Government are right to resist that.
I use the word "prejudice" in the strongest sense. I noted the way in which the hon. Member for Wallasey read out the extract from the Bain report and criticised the recommendation that the NBA should look for profitable commercial opportunities outside the United Kingdom. Why should we be against profit for the national health service? We should be explaining to blood donors that the blood that they give is primarily for the national health service, but if there are surpluses we should let the profit


accrue to the national health service instead of the surpluses being burnt and sent up the chimney, which would mean the money going to waste.

Mr. Waterson: Does my hon. Friend agree that if, for example, a third-world country wanted advice on setting up its own blood service and came to the NBA, it would be perfectly right for the NBA to give that advice for humanitarian reasons—a point on which the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) refused me the opportunity to intervene—in terms of giving humanitarian assistance to that country, and also right that the NBA should charge consultancy fees for so doing?

Mr. Jenkin: Yes, of course. However, as we have heard endlessly in this debate, the Opposition do not understand the word "consultancy". They wantonly criticise anything that purports to be a consultancy document and they would not begin to understand that a consultancy document prepared by the NBA for another country might be worth a great deal of money for the national health service and for the National Blood Authority.

Mrs. Jane Kennedy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: I will not give way because I know that others wish to speak in the debate.
The representations that hon. Members have received from constituents probably reflect the proximity of blood transfusion centres that are likely to be affected. In my constituency I have had virtually no representations on the subject. Brentwood is just across the county and it is probably where most of the blood for the Colchester general hospital comes from. The alternative may be Cambridge or Colindale.
In fact, the people who give blood and the hospitals that receive it will see hardly any change in the service. The people who may suffer, and to whom we should pay tribute at a time of change, are the staff—those who will have to change the most. However, it does them little service to gallop off with all the scare stories, making matters worse than they need be instead of helping the Government and the service to provide the change that is so sorely needed.

Mr. John Marshall: Like other hon. Members, I pay tribute to those who work for the blood service. I know that in my constituency on Sunday there will be people collecting blood from volunteers such as myself. Indeed, I understand that blood has even been collected from members of the Treasury team, although whether the service managed to get blood out of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury I would not like to say.
It has already been pointed out that the blood service in Britain produces the safest blood in the world, but those who rely on blood products from the national health service have not always been able to do so with that assurance. I therefore ask the Minister to think again about the haemophiliacs who were infected with hepatitis C as a result of being given infected blood products. The Government acted generously towards haemophiliacs who were infected with HIV, and I would like my hon. Friend

to talk again, either in private or in public, about that issue and tell me what progress has been made on providing funds to ensure that those with hepatitis C are being give adequate treatment.
I also reiterate another point, because the chairman of the Haemophilia Society is a constituent of mine: the Haemophilia Society has confirmed that it has no objection to the export of surplus factor 8. The society sees no sense in saying that we should not export it. If we do not, we deny other people a chance of life and the at the same time deny a small sum to the NHS.
Those who give blood do so to save life, and it would be wrong if that donated blood were burnt instead of being used to save lives. I am appalled that people can put political prejudice before the saving of life, and we have heard some pretty unctuous humbug and nonsense talked on that subject tonight.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am delighted to have an opportunity, albeit brief, to contribute to the debate. Above all, the debate is a tribute to the willingness of the British people, in places such as Eastbourne and other places all over the country, to give their blood on a perfectly voluntary basis, out of pure altruism.
There were 2.4 million such donations last year, and about 800,000 patients received the benefit of transfusions. I heartily endorse what the Minister said in his opening speech: we support and emphasise the importance of the voluntary principle in the blood service in this country.
If you were a Martian listening to the debate—although I know that you are not, Mr. Deputy Speaker—you might think that Conservatives would be the people who oppose change. I believe that it was Lord Kilmuir who said:
If it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.
That has been a strong Conservative tradition, but it means two things. It means preserving traditions which are useful, but it also means testing on a regular basis to find out whether change would bring greater benefits and efficiency.
In the debate it has emerged that it is the Labour party which resists sensible and constructive change. Labour Members are the advocates of continuing a system of bureaucracy which has its roots merely in the historical system which produced 14 or 15 different centres. For the Labour party everything must always remain the same, but the National Blood Authority and I believe that we need a fully integrated modern national blood transfusion service in this country.
What we are talking about tonight will not directly affect donors. We are talking about the consolidation and administration and processing of blood supplies. In doing that, we are aiming for the highest possible standards of safety—in the light of HIV and hepatitis—and reliability of supply. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) spoke at length about the problems of inequality of supply in different parts of the country. We are looking for a reduction in cost and the pursuit in the right circumstances of commercial opportunities—such as the example that I gave in an intervention—which would bring extra revenue into the NHS, as well as save money.
Donors will not have to travel further. Already the majority of blood is donated at mobile centres and units. We have heard a lot of scare stories from the Opposition today. Those scare stories have been a disgrace, and may have led to donors being unwilling to continue providing blood—the very thing of which Opposition Members warned during the debate. Nor, for that matter, is there any threat to specialist services, which will continue to be provided under the proposals. Those services include, for example, platelets for the treatment of leukaemia.
I am grateful to have had the chance to speak in the debate. I wish that I had more time, but Opposition speakers spoke at some length. The Government's proposals are well thought out and there has been very wide consultation. The weight of expert opinion is behind the proposals, which provide a sensible way forward for the blood service of this country—a much loved British institution.

Ms Tessa Jowell: Tonight's debate has shown clearly that the future of the blood service concerns hon Members on both sides of the House. It has also been an occasion on which hon. Members have had a chance to restate the enormous debt of gratitude we owe to the nation's 2 million blood donors and to the staff who collect, test and process the blood at 15 regional centres.
We have the safest blood service in the world. Our tradition of donors giving blood for nothing to help those in need is almost unique in world medicine. We have every reason to be proud of it. Richard Titmuss demonstrated 30 years ago that, on the grounds of efficiency, price and safety, the commercialised blood market was wasteful, inefficient and risky to patients. Nothing has changed.
Our motion tonight reflects the public's outrage and its lack of confidence in the National Blood Authority. The proposed reorganisation of the blood service has attracted criticism from across the board. If the need for change is shown, that change should be brought about with the support and guidance of donors and those who work in the service, and not in the teeth of their opposition.
The NBA's chief executive, John Adey, promised my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) that the Liverpool centre would not close unless its closure was supported by clinicians. I ask the Minister whether he can confirm that the Government stand by that pledge. Will he also confirm that the Oxford centre will stay open, given—as my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) has made clear—the opposition to its closure from more than 100 eminent clinicians? Hon. Members from all parts of the House, and not least those hon. Members whose seats will be affected by closures, will no doubt want such assurances before they decide how to vote tonight.
The Opposition motion asks the Secretary of State to intervene directly, to visit all the centres currently threatened with closure and to review the National Blood Authority's proposals in the light of what he hears. These are reasonable requests in anybody's language. The Secretary of State must reach beyond the swelling bureaucracy of the National Blood Authority and speak directly to the staff and donors concerned.
The loss of public confidence in the NBA stems directly from the false values which that bureaucracy is adopting. It offers a classic example of how simple virtues of public service have become distorted and lost in the new market culture. What was once a hard-working and lean branch of the NHS is now an independent organisation with its own agenda, a new hierarchy, a new layer of management and—it goes without saying—a new logo and corporate identity, which cost £46,000 and goodness knows how much management time. A health authority with all the pretensions of a macho commercial organisation is slowly suffocating a public service which is admired around the world.
The National Blood Authority's chairman, Sir Colin Walker, has been quoted as saying that all publicity is good publicity for the NBA, however bad. In that case, let me congratulate him on a public relations triumph.
If the language of priorities is the religion of socialism, then competition is the totem pole of the market—any competition. One is not a macho bureaucracy if one does not introduce competition—competition however unnecessary, competition however inefficient, competition however destructive. Competing is macho; simple public service is for wimps in this brave new corporate world.
The direct and immediate result of the new orthodoxy was this summer's blood bag fiasco, to which many hon. Members have referred. It was intolerable to the new macho managers that one firm—Baxter's—was supplying all the blood bags to the national health service. The fact that the bags worked was completely irrelevant. So, for a claimed saving of £700,000, about 20 per cent. of the contract was withdrawn from Baxter's and given to Tuta instead. We all know what happened then—10,000 units of blood, each and every one the product of someone's selflessness, were poured down the drain.
There are other examples of the NBA's commercial madness. It has entered into secret discussions about sponsorship of blood donor sessions with McVitie and Ribena. Donors want to give for the good of others and to repay the debt that many feel they owe for their own transfusions, but they do not want to be at the sharp end of a sales pitch.
The next initiative was to organise a donor recruitment drive in July, just when blood stocks are rightly kept low because of the small amount of surgery that is carried out in August.
On top of that, as other hon. Members have said, the authority has shown a contempt for the House and the Secretary of State by appointing 12 new members of staff to the reorganised organisation before it has been approved. The NBA then compounded its contempt by trying to gag its staff, warning them that if they tried to raise matters of concern with their Members of Parliament, they might be the subject of disciplinary action.
It is not difficult to state what the blood service needs to produce its best results, and I have four straightforward proposals which I challenge the Minister to adopt. All have come directly from my six visits to various blood centres. They have all come from staff and donors involved in the work of those centres.
First, steps need to be taken to reduce blood wastage by ensuring that all centres are brought up to the efficiency standards of the best. Secondly, the way in which blood


is supplied to London needs to be reviewed. At present, some 40,000 to 60,000 units are imported to London, mostly to the two northern London blood centres. If the adjoining centres at Oxford and Cambridge were allowed to provide blood to the London hospitals on their side of London, it would ease the difficulty of matching supply and demand.
Thirdly, the authority should remove the new zonal tier of management. It costs nearly £2 million a year. The proposed organisation would be more unwieldy, with longer lines of communication and decision times, and flies against all the current theories of good management.
The Secretary of State said that he is a bureau-sceptic. Now is his chance to show some healthy scepticism in the bureaucracy that he has created.

Mr. Malone: Does the hon. Lady agree that the best thing for a bureau-sceptic is to get rid of 15 bureaucracies and replace them by only three?

Ms Jowell: The Secretary of State should listen to some of the excellent ideas for changing, developing and improving the service that he would hear if he took the time and trouble to go and talk directly to the staff.
We must also make it the practice that no plasma is sold without donors' permission. Many hon. Members have expressed concern about that this evening. What matters is not that surplus factor 8 is being sold to Europe and other countries but that Ministers have stated in the House that there will be no sale of factor 8 or other blood products until there is a surplus. We do not have a surplus of factor 8. We have a sufficiency only because we import it for various clinical reasons. Ministers should make the position clear to donors, because it is open to confusion and misinterpretation. It would be fatal if the impression were ever formed that donors are giving their blood so that it could be sold at a profit.
Hon. Members from both sides of the House have raised specific worries about their local centres. I would like to pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) and for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) for their sterling work in defence of the Liverpool blood centre and to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) who spoke so eloquently about the concerns of clinicians in Oxford about the threatened closure of the Oxford centre.
The Minister claims that the Labour party is scaremongering. The problem is that the Government always look for somebody else to blame. We are happy to share with the Minister the hundreds of letters from clinicians who are worried about standards of safety, and we hope that he will take their concerns seriously in considering the recommendations for the future.
The National Blood Authority and the Government seem to base their argument on two grounds. First, they argue that blood centres are currently working below capacity. The Bain report uses a calculation that bears no relation to reality and ignores the fact that machines have to be serviced; that they work five, not six, days a week; and that there are variations in the level of donation. A just-in-time service, as it is known, cannot possibly operate at full or near capacity all the time.
We should not forget that new viral tests are already in use in the United States, France and Japan. If they are introduced in this country, another 28 per cent. of testing capacity will be needed. The Government have trotted out the capacity argument in respect of other parts of the health service. It was the capacity argument that led to the closure of acute beds and produced Bottomley wards—patients on trolleys in corridors for hours on end.
The second area of dispute focuses on projections of likely future demand for blood. Bain foresaw an annual increase of about 1 to 2 per cent. On that basis, the NBA decided to reduce the number of centres. However, the NBA itself, and Ministers, had forecast the growth in need at 4 per cent. and 5 per cent. respectively. In those circumstances, there must be doubts about the level of future need. It would be foolish in the extreme to risk exposing the service to shortages.
Tonight's debate gives the House a real opportunity to send a clear message to the Government and the National Blood Authority that the country does not want its precious donor-based blood service messed about by the new breed of macho managers. The giving of blood creates a unique ethical bond between donors, those who manage the service and the patients whose lives depend on it. It is difficult to imagine a relationship further removed from the marketplace or one where crass commercialisation is more out of place.
I ask all hon. Members, many of whom will themselves be donors or recipients, to join us in the Lobby and send a message of support to the people who give their blood and a message of comfort to those patients whose lives depend it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I shall not accede to the invitation of the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) but I congratulate her on this red letter day because, for once, the Labour party is devoting some time from its Supply days—half a day—to health. That is very welcome and also very rare.

Ms Jowell: Most of the health debates in this Session of Parliament have been held in Opposition time.

Mr. Sackville: Have we heard anything about Labour's health policies? Have we heard anything about how Labour will face up to the great opportunities and challenges of the NHS in the future? No. We have simply heard a series of recycled headlines—thoroughly misleading and damaging headlines—many of which were inspired by the Labour party in the first place.
The speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), who opened the debate, consisted of one headline after another. He began on the question of selling blood and we were reminded of an article in Today dated 16 December 1994 entitled "Stop Selling Our Blood". That was Germany; he went on to Turkey with an article dated 9 January 1994 entitled "Donors Kebabed". We then heard about the crown on the National Blood Authority's logo, which was totally irrelevant. The headline there was
Charles out for blood over vanishing crown".


That completes the irrelevance.

Ms Jowell: The removal of the crown from the National Blood Authority's logo was not irrelevant to the people who came to Downing street this morning with the signatures of more than 3,000 people who object to the arbitrary removal of the crown—a logo that they were proud of—with no consultation whatever by the NBA.

Mr. Sackville: The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East went on to talk about blood shortages. A headline on 30 March 1995 read:
Blood banks in new crisis".
Within six weeks, we had another headline in the Sunday Times about surpluses of blood—"Hospitals dumping surplus blood"—which just shows that one cannot win.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) made a number of sensible points about clinical consensus. Clearly, we shall do nothing which, in general clinical opinion, poses dangers to patients. Neither on this occasion nor at other times when we have debated this matter in the House—the hon. Lady and I have discussed this matter in an Adjournment debate—have we heard any evidence that the proposals, which are still before the Secretary of State, pose a danger to patients.
There are large towns and cities all over the country with hospitals that do not have blood processing, testing or transfusion facilities. I remind the hon. Lady that large cities with one or two acute hospitals, such as Leicester, Nottingham, Coventry, Middlesbrough, Sunderland, Durham, Hull and Bradford have never had processing or bulk testing facilities.

Mrs. Jane Kennedy: Will the Minister publish the responses from clinicians on Merseyside? If those are as he says and if the points that they make can be answered adequately, it will silence the criticism that we have made on that point. But if he will not publish those responses, not only will the clinicians continue to doubt what he says but so will hon. Members, the public and the donors who contribute to the service.

Mr. Sackville: Any of the people who submitted returns during the consultation are free to publish whatever they wrote, but those consultations were conducted on the basis that what was written was confidential and addressed to the NBA. No one is being prevented, however, from saying exactly what they think.
Since the survey was conducted there has been much communication between consultants in the hon. Lady's area and the NBA. Any of those consultants is free to provide evidence that there is some danger to patients in Liverpool, but, as far as I know, none has been forthcoming. It would be deeply insulting to the NBA and all those who have made the proposals to suggest that they would make any that would be dangerous to patients.
The location of processing and testing facilities is not fundamental. What matters is that there is an adequate network of such facilities across the country to provide those services to all hospitals. The hon. Lady is well aware that the blood banks kept at hospitals or at large transfusion centres which may not have access to processing and testing facilities in the future will still be able to benefit from a perfectly adequate service. There are a great many scare stories around and we must have some evidence before we take them seriously.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) was particularly interested in the sale of factor 8 and other plasma-based blood products. I cannot help feeling that he is chasing a headline. The price of such products in Turkey or anywhere else is a sufficiently abstruse subject. As has been said to him repeatedly, if we sell such products when they are surplus to requirement it is not possible to control their end price in all markets. There is no mechanism for doing so.

Mr. Jenkin: I half wondered whether the complaint from those on the Liberal Benches was that the price obtained for blood products abroad was not high enough.

Mr. Sackville: If we have surplus products, we must get an acceptable price for them. If we failed to do so, we would be denying funds to the NBA which could be reinvested in the service. If we refused to sell those products, we would have to destroy them. That would be foolish, as several of my hon. Friends have already pointed out, with the support, I understand, of the Haemophilia Society.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I am grateful to the Minister for dealing with the points that I raised, but will he answer my question? Is there any reason why the Government should not insist that the contracts for the sale of factor 8 should include conditions that would avoid profiteering with it thereafter: yes or no?

Mr. Sackville: We are keen to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman's ideas on the subject. We do not wish to encourage profiteering by pharmaceutical middlemen. We are all ears to hear how the hon. and learned Gentleman would avoid that. For the moment we will stick to our policy of disposing of those blood products when they are surplus to requirement. They are high-quality pharmaceutical products for which there is a world market. If they are surplus here, we will sell them abroad.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also said that we have undermined donors' faith in the service. I refute that charge utterly. If anything has undermined their faith—there is no evidence that it has—it is the press campaign encouraged by Opposition Members. It is clear that that might have discouraged donors.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) made several arguments. She said that it was important that donors should be able to donate locally, as now, and that the myth that had got around, which was part of the general black propaganda campaign, is entirely false. Specialist donors and other donors will be able to donate locally, as now.
My hon. Friend made a strong bid for a new blood centre. I am sure that the NBA will have heard that, and perhaps there will be a case for it. She reminded us of the need for an early decision about those matters. Obviously, the uncertainty has been very unsettling.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) made several helpful comments. He was kind enough to thank me for my patience in listening to his eloquent pleas on behalf of Brentwood. I am sure that the NBA will have heard those pleas. I know that my hon. Friend has met representatives of the NBA several times and that those matters have been considered. He said—using several technical arguments—that he saw no reason


to move facilities into Colindale or Cambridge. I understand his arguments, and assure him that they will be considered very carefully.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) reminded us of the fate of haemophiliacs who had had the misfortune to contract hepatitis C. I heard what he argued so eloquently. His arguments will all be considered, but I must tell him that there is a continuing policy that, where no negligence is proved, the Government do not pay compensation. However, I understand well what he said.
The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) informed us that decisions have been taken in secret. I refute that absolutely. She also said that we have spoken, or that Bain has spoken, about commercialising the blood service. I refute that, but we need to have a blood service that is run along business lines and which does everything possible to improve quality throughout the system.

Mr. Andrew Smith: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Sackville: I will not; I have only three minutes.
I also say to the hon. Member for Wallasey that what appeared in the Bain report is not policy; it is suggestions to the NBA. There is no reason to suppose that, simply because something appeared in the Bain report, it will become policy.
The cynical and underhand campaign that has gone on in the past year to disrupt the blood service has failed. It has not succeeded in deterring our donors, who have ignored all the headlines and scare stories, and have continued to give blood magnificently. The reality is not what has been communicated in various absurd headlines. The reality is that, in each of the past 10 months, the number of donations has been higher than in the equivalent month of last year.
The NBA has succeeded in improving the use of the blood collected by better co-ordination of stock movements—a fundamental part of the new proposals—so supply has better matched demand and wastage has been sharply reduced. That is an important success.
Conservative Members have become used to the fairly systematic denigration of the NHS by the Labour party, but I believe that people are increasingly aware of the contrast between their experience and all that denigration, and increasingly discount what they hear from the Labour party.
The blood service should be exempt from all that because if such attempts to disrupt the service succeeded the consequences would be dire. We all know that if there was a sudden drop in donations, routine operations such as hip and knee replacements and non-emergency cardiac surgery would cease and rationing would start.
It has been a disreputable campaign to disrupt the health service and the blood service that is vital to it. I reject the motion, which I think has flowed directly from that campaign. I hope that the House will treat it with the contempt that it deserves.

Mr. Dennis Turner: rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 249, Noes 290

Division No. 218]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dewar, Donald


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dixon, Don


Ainger, Nick
Dobson, Frank


Allen, Graham
Donohoe, Brian H


Alton, David
Dowd, Jim


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Armstrong, Hilary
Eastham, Ken


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Etherington, Bill


Ashton, Joe
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Austin-Walker, John
Fatchett, Derek


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Barnes, Harry
Fisher, Mark


Barron, Kevin
Flynn, Paul


Battle, John
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bayley, Hugh
Foster, Don (Bath)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Foulkes, George


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Fraser, John


Bell, Stuart
Fyfe, Maria


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Galloway, George


Bennett, Andrew F
Garrett, John


Benton, Joe
Gerrard, Neil


Bermingham, Gerald
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Berry, Roger
Godman, Dr Norman A


Betts, Clive
Godsiff, Roger


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boateng, Paul
Graham, Thomas


Bradley, Keith
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Grocott, Bruce


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Gunnell, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hain, Peter


Byers, Stephen
Hall, Mike


Caborn, Richard
Hanson, David


Callaghan, Jim
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Henderson, Doug


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Heppell, John


Campbell-Savours, D N
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cann, Jamie
Hinchliffe, David


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Hodge, Margaret


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hoey, Kate


Church, Judith
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Clapham, Michael
Home Robertson, John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hood, Jimmy


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Clelland, David
Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hoyle, Doug


Coffey, Ann
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Corbett, Robin
Hutton, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Illsley, Eric


Corston, Jean
Ingram, Adam


Cousins, Jim
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cox, Tom
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cummings, John
Janner, Greville


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Dafis, Cynog
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Darling, Alistair
Jowell, Tessa


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Keen, Alan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Denham, John
Khabra, Piara S






Kilfoyle, Peter
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Primarolo, Dawn


Lewis, Terry
Purchase, Ken


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Quin, Ms Joyce


Litherland, Robert
Radice, Giles


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Raynsford, Nick


Llwyd, Elfyn
Reid, Dr John


Loyden, Eddie
Rendel, David


Lynne, Ms Liz
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


McAllion, John
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McAvoy, Thomas
Rogers, Allan


McCartney, Ian
Rooker, Jeff


McCartney, Robert
Rooney, Terry


McFall, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McKelvey, William
Ruddock, Joan


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sheerman, Barry


McLeish, Henry
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McMaster, Gordon
Short, Clare


McNamara, Kevin
Simpson, Alan


MacShane, Denis
Skinner, Dennis


Madden, Max
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Maddock, Diana
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Mahon, Alice
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mandelson, Peter
Snape, Peter


Marek, Dr John
Soley, Clive


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Spearing, Nigel


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Spellar, John


Maxton, John
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Meacher, Michael
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Meale, Alan
Stevenson, George


Michael, Alun
Stott, Roger


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Milburn, Alan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Miller, Andrew
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)



Timms, Stephen


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Tipping, Paddy


Morgan, Rhodri
Touhig, Don


Morley, Elliot
Turner, Dennis


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Tyler, Paul


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Vaz, Keith


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wallace, James


Mullin, Chris
Walley, Joan


Murphy, Paul
Welsh, Andrew


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wicks, Malcolm


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Olner, Bill
Wilson, Brian


O'Neill, Martin
Winnick, David


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wise, Audrey


Parry, Robert
Worthington, Tony


Pearson, Ian
Wray, Jimmy


Pendry, Tom
Wright, Dr Tony


Pickthall, Colin
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pike, Peter L



Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Mr. Geoffrey Hoon and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Baldry, Tony


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Alexander, Richard
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bates, Michael


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Batiste, Spencer


Amess, David
Bellingham, Henry


Ancram, Michael
Bendall, Vivian


Arbuthnot, James
Beresford, Sir Paul


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Ashby, David
Booth, Hartley


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Boswell, Tim


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Bowden, Sir Andrew





Bowis, John
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brandreth, Gyles
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brazier, Julian
Gorst, Sir John


Bright, Sir Graham
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Grylls, Sir Michael


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Budgen, Nicholas
Hague, Rt Hon William


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Sir Archibald


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butcher, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butler, Peter
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Butterfill, John
Hannam, Sir John


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Carrington, Matthew
Hawkins, Nick


Carttiss, Michael
Hawksley, Warren


Cash, William
Hayes, Jerry


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heald, Oliver


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Churchill, Mr
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clappison, James
Hendry, Charles


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coe, Sebastian
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Congdon, David
Horam, John


Conway, Derek
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Couchman, James
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cran, James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hunter, Andrew


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jack, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Day, Stephen
Jenkin, Bernard


Devlin, Tim
Jessel, Toby


Dicks, Terry
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Dover, Den
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Duncan, Alan
King, Rt Hon Tom


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Knox, Sir David


Elletson, Harold
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Legg, Barry


Evennett, David
Leigh, Edward


Faber, David
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Fabricant, Michael
Lidington, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lightbown, Sir David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fishburn, Dudley
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Forman, Nigel
Lord, Michael


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Luff, Peter


Forth, Eric
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
MacKay, Andrew


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
McLoughlin, Patrick


French, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fry, Sir Peter
Madel, Sir David


Gale, Roger
Major, Rt Hon John


Gallie, Phil
Malone, Gerald


Gardiner, Sir George
Mans, Keith


Garnier, Edward
Marland, Paul


Gill, Christopher
Marlow, Tony


Gillan, Cheryl
Marshall, John (Hendon S)






Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mates, Michael
Spring, Richard


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Sproat, Iain


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Merchant, Piers
Steen, Anthony


Mills, Iain
Stephen, Michael


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stern, Michael


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Stewart, Allan


Moate, Sir Roger
Streeter, Gary


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Sumberg, David


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Sweeney, Walter


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Sykes, John


Neubert, Sir Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Norris, Steve
Temple-Morris, Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thomason, Roy


Ottaway, Richard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Page, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Paice, James
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Tracey, Richard


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tredinnick, David


Pawsey, James
Trend, Michael


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Trotter, Neville


Pickles, Eric
Twinn, Dr Ian


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Viggers, Peter


Powell, William (Corby)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Rathbone, Tim
Walden, George


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Waller, Gary


Richards, Rod
Ward, John


Robathan, Andrew
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Waterson, Nigel


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Watts, John


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wells, Bowen


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Whitney, Ray


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Whittingdale, John


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Sackville, Tom
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Wilkinson, John


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Willetts, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wilshire, David


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wolfson, Mark


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Yeo, Tim


Shersby, Sir Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Sims, Roger



Skeet, Sir Trevor
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Roger Knapman.


Soames, Nicholas

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House commends the continued support of blood donors, on which the Blood Service is founded and which is at the heart of the National Health Service; and fully recognises the commitment of blood service regional staff and the importance of ensuring that this vital national service continues to improve and develop into an integrated national service, based on high and uniform standards of safety, reliability and efficiency.

Cable Companies (Street Works)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Minister extol the virtues of Britain being wired into the information super-highway, but my principal purpose is to draw attention to some of the many problems that my constituents have suffered as their streets have been torn up and their pavements littered with junction boxes.
Let me begin by setting the record straight in regard to the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, which gave cable companies powers to dig up our streets. On 11 March last year, the Bolton Evening News carried a rather unfortunate cartoon showing my head in a noose, with the caption "Hang him high", after a Labour councillor had accused me of being the number one guilty man for supporting the Bill's passage in May 1991. On examining the record, I see that I was in very good company: so few problems were anticipated that the Bill was given an unopposed Second and Third Reading.
At that time I received no representations from Bolton council or, indeed, from anyone else. Perhaps Councillor Laurie Williamson will now be good enough to withdraw his entirely unwarranted accusation—the claim that I am the "number one guilty man" responsible for the chaos that Bolton has suffered in the past as a result of being a pioneer town in regard to cabling. The scale of that chaos was clearly not anticipated at the time by Bolton council or anyone else.
I think that my hon. Friend is already aware of some of my constituents' concerns, but I have files of correspondence from more than 40 of them who have been seriously inconvenienced by many problems—for instance, damage to tree roots. I have an advance copy of the November issue of Gardening Which?, which contains a major article on the way in which trenching affects tree roots. The magazine says in conclusion that it would like to offer to
chair a forum of all concerned in order to avert what could too easily become an environmental disaster, as another 30,000 miles of trenches are left to be dug in this country".
We have had problems with losing services of various kinds. Water pipes have been cut in neighbouring constituencies, and telephone wires have also been cut. We have had warfare with British Telecom, on occasion, when telephone wires have been cut and Nynex's contractors refused to accept responsibility for them. Power supplies have been cut on numerous occasions—including that of my own secretary, a great mistake on the part of Nynex. Holes in the roads have been left unmarked; pavements have been left broken or badly reinstated. I have received a long letter from Alderman Ken McIvor, a former mayor, on this very point. Badly sited junction boxes are another of our continuing problems which get no better with time.
I want to dwell on two particular cases this evening. One concerns the house at 26 Thorns close in Astley Bridge, where my constituents Mr. and Mrs. Mulrooney found that the cable company, Nynex, refused to reposition a large junction box that had been plonked right in front of their sitting room window. I would be glad to


show the Minister photographs of it. The box has been put there in direct contravention of Nynex's own cabinet siting ground rules, a copy of which I have with me. Dated 13 January 1994, they run to 25 separate points. Rule 19 says:
place the junction box in the most unobtrusive position possible, i.e., not in full view from the front window".
The junction box at Thorns close directly contravenes that rule.
Surprisingly, the battle to have the box removed has gone on for more than a year. In that time the Mulrooneys have been told, variously, that it is impossible to replace it, or that if it were replaced it would cost the company £6,000, and so on. Nynex wrote to the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), who wrote on to me in July as follows:
I understand Nynex are unable to relocate the cabinet".
It is remarkable, however, what can happen once a Member of Parliament secures an Adjournment debate. I am delighted to hear from the Mulrooneys that, in the past couple of days, Nynex and its contractors have indeed found it possible to relocate the junction box away from the Mulrooney's sitting room window. They have rung me to express their great delight. It is odd that one has to secure a debate in Parliament to demonstrate the problems that constituents can have before a proper remedy is found.
I arranged a site meeting to discuss the matter on 31 March, but not until now has anything been done about it. I am delighted, however, that progress has finally been made in this case.
The other case that I want to mention concerns my constituent Mr. Simon Pearce, of Lower House walk, Bromley Cross, and his mother Mrs. Joan Pearce who lives close by. Mr. Pearce had complained about the poor reinstatement of the pavements dug up near his house in the spring of last year and about the great danger that they presented to a number of elderly residents living nearby. He repeatedly called for inspections by Bolton council and Nynex. He arranged for four site visits by inspectors, and he was promised that all the necessary remedial work would be carried out by December 1994, long after the six-month statutory limit laid down by regulation.
Despite these four site inspections it was obvious that no proper records were kept or disciplines applied either by Bolton council or Nynex and its contractors. Mr. Pearce had to arrange for a further site inspection, on 7 February this year, with a senior Nynex supervisor, but Nynex continued to fail to carry out its statutory duties properly to reinstate the pavements. There is a sad and ironic twist to the tale, because sadly, on 8 April this year, Mr. Pearce's elderly mother tripped badly and suffered severely in a fall on one of these badly reinstated paving stones on Rose Hill drive. It was Mr. Pearce who found his mother seriously shocked, bleeding and needing immediate hospital treatment.
But even after that saga, Nynex has still failed to reinstate the pavements. Even today, my constituent informs me that the necessary work has still not been done. To remedy matters, I recommend to my hon. Friend that whatever his existing codes of practice may be they should be scrapped and totally rewritten. In May of last year, the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) wrote to me, saying:
I am willing to strengthen the codes of practice and regulations.

I make the following eight points for incorporation in a much-toughened and strengthened code of practice. I am grateful to Mr. Pearce for putting these points to me.
First, the cable company should publicise how the public can complain about street works by letter and freephone telephone number. Full publicity should be given in the press, regional television advertisements, on all the company's vehicles and at the site of street works.
Secondly, the company should satisfy the Department of Trade and Industry and the relevant local authority that it has such quality assurance standards and procedures in place internally, as well as keeping a log of written and telephone complaints received. Logs should be kept at local level and should record the remedial action taken, and the overall performance of areas properly monitored.
Thirdly, quality assurance procedures should require that inspectors make a written record of the location and nature of pavement reinstatement problems. The Minister will recall that an aggravating feature of Mrs. Pearce's injury was that her son did point out the problems to Nynex inspectors on numerous separate site inspections and none of the inspectors made a written record of the many problems that were shown to them. A closely related issue is whether Nynex has employed inspectors of a sufficient calibre to supervise contractors properly.
Fourthly, the code of practice should also require cable companies to ensure quality standards in their contractors. In the case of Rose Hill drive, skilled paving masons were required, not unskilled labourers. But skilled masons were not used until Mr. Pearce intervened. Quality standards should also mean that contractors do not mix mortar on the pavements and leave it to set hard as a permanent memorial to sloppy workmanship.
Fifthly, there should be more consistency in the use of inspectors. Mr. Pearce pointed out that he felt that Nynex had transferred or rotated its inspectors in my constituency more frequently than Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry.
Sixthly, reinstatement standards should be the same as those in the United States. My constituent, Mr. Pearce, has a neighbour who is very experienced in the construction industry and a frequent visitor to the United States. I learn that the standards for the reinstatement of pavements and roads are much higher there. Will the Minister consider whether we are perhaps a soft touch in Britain compared with the United States?
Seventhly, when a legal claim is made against Nynex for injury in connection with street works, I gather that the company feels that its responsibility is to refer the matter to the contractor, but Nynex is the designated utility under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 and so, I believe, it has a primary responsibility. The proposed code of practice should require Nynex to accept full responsibility and to compensate without expensive legal action. There may be thousands of potential claimants in the country who do not proceed against cable companies because of the expense involved.
The eighth point in my proposed code of practice is that local authorities should have a duty to maintain a log of all complaints received about cable communications street works, and pursue each complaint vigorously rather than allow the companies to remedy problems in their own good time. My code of practice would set out financial penalties for poor reinstatement. Heavy fines


should follow where companies do not carry out reinstatements properly, despite constantly being asked to do so.
My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that at present, there seems to be too much discretion. I understand that Nynex was largely untroubled by local authority-imposed fines in the case of the very bad performance that we experienced in Bolton, yet Nynex has revealed to my constituents that Manchester city council is much more vigorous in imposing fines. My code of practice would reduce the likelihood of some local authorities, such as Bolton, becoming a soft touch.
Time does not allow me to expand on related points, such as full compensation for traders who suffer from street works by utility operators in general, discussion about the virtues of, for example, trenchless digging or digital broadcasting, which may make cables obsolete altogether. I am, however, grateful for this opportunity to raise the subject on the Adjournment and I look forward to my hon. Friend's assurances that other constituencies will be protected from the problems we have experienced in Bolton as one of the pioneers.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Richard Page): I commend and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on swinging into action so promptly after the resumption of Parliament and on raising a subject that has touched the postbag of many, if not quite all, hon. Members. His initiation of this debate will, I hope, be a clear message to the various Bolton councillors—who have been rather discourteous to him—that he has his constituents' interests at heart.
My hon. Friend will, I trust, appreciate that I shall leave alone the fact that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the Leader of the Opposition, in his epic announcement of the BT deal at the Labour party conference, apparently overlooked all the work of the cable companies and the sheer size and scale of their operations—some £10 billion-worth. The point the companies make—that they are already linking up schools throughout the country—seems to have eluded the Labour party. Tempting as it is to go down those highways and byways, I know that my hon. Friend would rather that I addressed the point in front of us tonight. Constituents' complaints are, obviously, distressing and have to be investigated by any responsible Member of Parliament in the way that my hon. Friend did tonight. I pay tribute to his direction and enthusiasm.
On a more general point, I naturally appreciate the concerns that some residents may feel in areas where cable networks are being installed. The work, as we all know, can be noisy, dirty and seemingly interminable for those who are having their daily lives disrupted.
This is the problem of success. Cable is a huge venture for the 1990s. It brings benefits to all with, as I have said, £10 billion-worth of investment by the end of the decade and 26,000 jobs. The disruption the cable operators' street works causes is short-term. The benefits are real, of real benefit to residents themselves and long-term. In future, it will become a distinct selling factor in disposing of property to make the point that it is cabled. As I have

said, the short-term disruption is a small price to pay for the substantial benefits which flow in the long term to residents themselves from the modern, high-capacity infrastructure being installed.
Looking in the long term, the key point is that, in addition to multi-channel television, cable networks are delivering competitive, modern telephone services. The growth in demand for cable telephony has been one of the most striking factors, with the number of cable telephone lines installed rising from some 2,000 lines at the beginning of 1991 to just over 1 million lines currently. Each month, cable operators are signing up some 50,000 new telephone customers who are attracted by low-cost calls.
Even those who choose not to take those services from cable operators will benefit indirectly from the competitive pressure that they represent in the local telephony market. Competition from cable operators is acting as a spur to BT to reduce prices and to improve services further.
In future, the companies will have the potential to deliver a huge range of additional innovative services such as remote education, home banking and home shopping. I know that my hon. Friend, with all his knowledge and experience of the subject, appreciates that much more than most.
However, that is in the future, and I shall now talk about the specific problems that my hon. Friend has put before the House. In installing cable, some disruption is inevitable, as we all know. Streets must be dug up, but it is vital for such disruption to be kept to a minimum. It is the scale of cable operators' street works that distinguishes them from those of other statutory undertakers: quite simply, they must build an entirely new network across almost all of urban Britain—a huge task, which dwarfs the maintenance of existing utility systems.
That is why, in addition to the statutory requirements of street works legislation, cable operators' licences include conditions designed to ensure that they carry out all aspects of their street works in a responsible manner. What my hon. Friend has said rings alarms bells and it raises concerns in my mind that in certain instances that may not have happened.
There is a common misconception—I certainly come across it in my postbag—that cable operators have carte blanche to do as they wish when installing their systems, and are not subject to the same controls as other statutory undertakers. That is not the case. All street works, whether carried out by water undertakers or cable operators, are governed by the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991.
The Act imposes quite demanding conditions on street works and gives substantial powers to local highway authorities. Highway authorities may bring prosecutions for offences, including failure to reinstate, failure to comply with requirements as to reinstatement materials and workmanship standards, failure to sign, guard and light works as required and failure to co-operate with the highway authority.
As for the standard of reinstatement, the New Roads and Street Works Act requires that all reinstatements, temporary and permanent, conform to nationally specified standards. It gives the highway authority power to inspect undertakers' reinstatements, and to require defects to be


remedied by the undertaker within a stipulated time and at the undertaker's expense. Trenches have a minimum two-year guarantee from the date of final reinstatement.
However, the Act allows undertakers to reinstate only the width of the trench excavated. It aims to strike a balance between the legitimate interests of those undertaking street works, of residents and of other users of the street. As part of that balance, it was not considered reasonable to make the undertaker reinstate the full width of a footway where he had excavated only part of it. Instead, the code of practice requires footway reinstatements to match existing surfaces as far as practicable. Those powers are considerable, and as my hon. Friend has raised concerns, his local council should find out whether it has used fully and effectively the powers at its disposal.
My hon. Friend also raised the subject of the siting of street cabinets, which is an especially contentious issue. He is not alone in having had the subject brought before him. I have had the same experience, but in my constituency, although I have had four complaints, the cable operator there—Jones Cable, now a part of Bell Cable Media Ltd.—has dealt with all four of them efficiently and expeditiously, so I have not seen the suffering that my hon. Friend has seen.
There was an example in my constituency of street cabinets being incorrectly positioned, and I can well appreciate the excitement that that causes in constituents' minds. Although the number of complaints about cabinets is probably very small in proportion to the total number installed, I accept that a cabinet stuck outside someone's front window will cause some excitement. I hope that my hon. Friend's constituents, especially the Mulrooneys, will congratulate him and thank him for acting so expeditiously on their behalf.
Cable operators are required to place most of their apparatus—such as cables, and so on—underground. However, it is difficult to place cabinets in a similar position, because present technology does not yet allow them to be placed under the footpath. There is insufficient space in most urban footpaths to accommodate cable operators' equipment. Licence conditions are therefore framed to ensure that cabinets are sited as sensitively as possible.
Complaints monitoring is one aspect of the cable operators' activities that the DTI monitors particularly closely. The action we take is twofold. The individual complaints which come to our attention through correspondence with Ministers, officials or through local authorities are all invariably followed up in detail with the individual company concerned. Companies are encouraged to provide proper senior management guidance and supervision for staff employed to manage the street works and to respond to complaints. My hon. Friend commented on the rotation of the management looking at the issues, and that should be examined in due course.
At the same time, we monitor the overall trend of street works performance by looking in broad, often statistical, terms at the complaints reaching us and the Cable Communications Association, and by looking at local media coverage of the street works issues.
The statistical tools we use are intended to quickly identify worsening trends in street works performance which we raise very quickly with the companies concerned at senior level. Offending companies are monitored very closely, often being required frequently to report on, and account for, their performance at top management level.
I am pleased to say that the cable industry has been increasingly successful in managing its construction programme. The aggregate indicators we use suggest that the overall level of complaints, disruption and unacceptable impact caused by cable construction—taken across the UK as a whole—is falling. This is particularly pleasing, given that more construction is going on in 1995 than in any previous year. In the first six months of 1995, cable networks passed 795,000 homes as against 550,000 homes in the same period of 1994.
My hon. Friend raised the performance of Nynex in Bolton, which appears to be disappointing and at odds with some of the statistics we have received. The overall improvement in Nynex's performance has been particularly pleasing. We have been monitoring the firm particularly closely in view of concerns early in 1994 about the handling of its construction programme. In the Bolton franchise, the measures that Nynex has put in have brought about a reduction in the complaints per kilometre ratio from a peak of 3.25 complaints per kilometre built in the March to June period to 0.72 complaints per kilometre in 1995.
My hon. Friend has painted a serious picture, particularly of the Pearce family, whose case will be examined. He has made a number of specific recommendations to which I would prefer to respond once I have had an opportunity to draw them to the attention of Nynex, the Department of Transport and the Cable Communications Association.
When the DTI has had occasion to tackle Nynex over street works performance in the past, the company has made clear its commitment to implementing further changes as necessary to ensure closer management of its contractors and an overall high standard of its street works operations.
The Department of Transport, which has had a policy of responsibility for the New Roads and Street Works Act, is considering responses to its consultation earlier this year on possible changes to the codes and regulations under the Act. I understand from the Cable Communications Association that a cable industry construction code of practice is already in preparation. Some of my hon. Friend's recommendations may well be under consideration. He is going with the flow in this matter.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. Either a ministerial colleague or I will be back in contact with him when we have the answers to the points raised.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.